My research concerning the literary consequences of search engines such as Google does not fit the argument of definition or fact. The topic of research I have chosen does not fit the argument of definition because the article do not question the meaning or definition of a topic, such as Selber’s research that inquired the multiple meanings “digital literacy” has obtained and presents qualifications for the accurate meaning of it. As described in our textbook an argument of definition starts as a “tentative claim” that will have various considerations of alternative views and counterarguments regarding a definition. My research does not present contemplation over the definition of search engines, Google, or literacy and do not examine the possible alternative and counterargument concerning the definitions for each topic. Furthermore, my research does regard an argument of fact either. The textbook defines an argument of fact as an argument that “tends to be driven by perceptions and evidence” (182) and although my research applies the evidence that has been surrounding the use of Google, it was not branched out of concrete evidence. My research was based more on the concerns over Google and the affects it may have on the literary capabilities of the users. My research is more of a cause-and-effects study, rather than a topic based on the evidence already presented by scholars. Unlike, Malcom X’s argument that concerns the facts about being in prison, my research does not solely establish a foundation on the facts concerning the Google or the Net.
After reviewing the arguments and establishing that my research does not deal with arguments of fact or definition, I have concluded that most of my research presents a casual argument. According to Lunsford, there are various categories under the casual argument, and throughout my research I have encountered the argument process that presents a cause and then examines the effects. In my research the cause that is being examined is the avid use of Google and other search engines and the effects are multiple, such as poor research methods and diminishing literary comprehension. For example, Joseph Carr presents Google to be affecting the way individuals process information and their ability to comprehend lengthy passages. There are other scholars that I have researched that include an argument that is reverse to the cause-and-effect, but instead they review an effect and then trace back to the causes. These scholars present the effect to be the reduction of literacy capabilities and trace the Internet to cause of these mental trends of students, such as Isabelle De Ridder that presents the occurrence of students not learning grammar or reading the way they used to and traces the effects back to highlighted hyperlinks placed throughout websites and the continual use of them. Thus, I have encountered generally casual arguments throughout my research and no arguments of definition or fact; my research is based on cause and effects because the majority of it reviews the effects the Internet may have on our literary capabilities.
