Unfortunately, the above-cited paragraph on computer science does not achieve these standards. First and foremost, although directed to a general audience, it blatantly assumes that the reader agrees with the author when it states that computers have changed the world in a self-evident fashion. Even if the reader is an enthusiastic consumer of technology, the question arises of what evidence there is of a real change in terms of society, versus superficial and cosmetic shifts. Even the selection of 'fifty years' taken to manifest this change seems arbitrary rather than justified by any evidence. "What, if any, scientific research supports such claims? It appears that there are no scientific studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establish the validity of these statements. It is not just conclusions, such as those above, but also evaluative instruments that may lack a basis in research providing scientific evidence of their validity or reliability" (Pope 1998).
When analyzing a passage for its logical consistency, it is important to ask what the "main inferences/conclusions" are (Paul & Elder 2003: 36). As well as assuming the importance of the computer as a form of life-transforming technology, the existence of a 'digital divide' is also assumed. This is critical given that the 'digital divide' is one of the main components of the author's argument. He states that the 'divide' has been closing between rich and poor because more poor people are now able to afford computers, as manifested by the fact that 80% of all high school students are 'plugged in.' But what is meant by 'plugged in?' Does this mean that all of these high school students have access to computers on their school campuses? Having access to a word processing computer on campus is very different from being able to use the most advanced technology on one's home computer, or having the familiarity with a smartphone to use it for research on a consistent, daily basis. Merely being plugged in at school does not mean a student...
Furthermore, 'plugged in' may not refer to having a computer at all, and while mobile devices can be a useful enhancement of the application of computers in research, a student still needs a laptop or desktop to function effectively in a classroom environment, to write papers and to access long-form articles via academic databases. Not all 'plugged in' technology, in other words, is created equal.
Another assumption which must be questioned is what is meant by 'poor.' The term 'poor' is quite amorphous. Does it mean someone who is too poor to buy cutting edge technology, or someone who struggles to afford even the basic necessities? The different 'levels' of poverty will surely affect the extent to which there is a digital divide. Also, not all poor persons are young people, yet the author of the paragraph merely cites evidence of students being connected in school, rather than in other facets of American life. and, of course, relying upon schools to bridge the digital divide does nothing to address the problems of older people who are not 'plugged in.'
A final problem with the essay is the source of the article it cites. Businessweek is not a scholarly source. Although it is not completely lacking in credulity (it is a professional work of popular journalism), it is not a scholarly book, peer-reviewed journal, government website, or government report. More than a single bit of evidence is needed to make the sweeping claims of the author.
References
Douglas, N.L. (2000). Enemies of critical thinking: Lessons from social psychology research.
Reading Psychology, 21(2), 129-144
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study and learn (Part
III). Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 36-37.
Pope, K.S. (1998). Pseudoscience, cross-examination, and scientific evidence in the recovered memory controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 4(4), 1160-1181.
