When I first began this piece of writing, my first step was to create an itinerary of two captivating points to expand on with my Barclay’s formula paragraphs. Next, I chose to implement two quotes for each paragraph utilizing two various sources, such as what you asked for. I did this to allow for efficiency with my excerpts, as they would best correlate to such captivating points. I then designed my thesis to introduce such points, encompassing both “information gluttony and techno-cognitive nomadism.” I feel as these points infinitely increase the efficacy of my paper, as I am trying to compare both articles to ultimately unveil what I have to say about the topic at hand. I strongly believe these two factors are a strong drive in the technological presence today.
Furthermore, I began to elaborate on such points and stressed the “I say” in relation to the “They say” of the paper. I feel as if I did this strongly, putting a heavy emphasis on my own experiences in relation to both quotes at hand, as well as the thesis. To explain in detail with concrete specifics, I brought both a personal experience with my parents handling technology in addition to another personal experience with my nephew and his education. I ultimately branched off from the later personal experience with a very important takeaway—that further research needs to be conducted to truly understand the long-term effects of technological reliance.
Although the overarching points of my writing style remained relatively static, the framing and format of this article varied from my “bread-and-butter” format. I am very used to using shorter paragraphs targeted at one specific point in an analysis, and then using bridging points to transition to another important point. I also found myself force-feeding the writer information in my article, whereas I’m typically used to posing questions for the reader through a prompt—sparking intellectual contemplation for the individual reading. I do understand, however, that this practice does not follow the most effective method of informative writing which is why I deviated from such method.
Ultimately, I believe that the structure of my writing has improved quite a bit in relation to my previous project. There is a much more concise and practical flow of thoughts, where in my previous article such thoughts deviated occasionally, bouncing back to a general analysis of the articles utilized. Progressing further, I plan on upholding such structures while writing a clear and easy-to-read, mentally stimulating paper.