http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/sorry-you-cant-speed-read.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Jeffrey Zacks and Rebecca Treiman’s article is an argumentative piece about how people will not be able to effectively develop the skill of speed-reading. Speed-reading is defined firstly as “to absorb text several times faster than normal, without any significant loss of comprehension,” (Zacks and Treiman). The message is that several companies that promise to improve the customer’s ability to speed-read are deceptive. Scientific research is not able to support the claims that those companies make. The writers are actually both professors of psychological and brain sciences. One of the scientific articles that they refer to in the article is one of Treiman’s own studies. The authors also define what they consider the difference between skimming and speed-reading. Skimming is defined as “rapidly scanning a text to find a specific work or piece of information, or to pick up a general idea of what the text is about,” (Zacks and Treiman).
Poignantly enough, the title of the article is “Sorry, You Can’t Speed Read.” It is straight to the point, as if speaking directly to an audience that is interested in maximizing their skills. It is possible that the audience that the article is trying to reach would be students, grad students, research professionals or maybe even book reviewers. This is assumed considering these would be the types of careers that would benefit most out of the use of speed-reading. The writers actually make use of all three appeals, the logos, pathos, and ethos appeals, to write out their argument.
As stated before, the writers themselves are professors in brain sciences. That would put them in the position of knowledge as experts in the field. In other words, the readers can trust what they have to say because they have the knowledge and tools to give accurate information. This is a characteristic of the ethos appeal. Consideirng that it features two professors as the writers as opposed to a journalist interviewing a specialist would make the ethos appeal strong in this article.
Treiman’s study is a review of “empirical literature on reading and concluded that it’s extremely unlikely you can greatly improve your reading speed without missing out on a lot of meaning,” (Zacks and Treiman). Going back to the ethos appeal, Treiman is telling the reader directly that she put in the effort to read much of the general scientific research on this subject to make a scientific and professional conclusion. As a professional, she did all the work and is providing the reader with her analysis.
The reasoning behind this science as discussed in this article details that the fovea (a small part in the retina) has visual accuracy, but our sight around this small area has severe limitations in what it can process. In other words, readers can only focus on so much before everything else is lost in meaning. But the information gathered in this particular article is certainly a summary within itself. In case a description of words is lost on the reader, there is not a visual point of reference for readers who have trouble imagining the scientific descriptions in this article. For anyone who does not have any sort of visual representation of what a fovea is, it is “about the size of one’s thumb held at arm’s length,” (Oxenham). In fact, Oxenham’s article includes visual exercises so that readers can see for themselves the concepts described in Zacks and Treiman’s article.
Oxenham also goes into deeper details, such as discussing the suppresson of “the little voice reading inside our head (known as subvocalization),” (Oxenham), which can help a reader read faster. But it does hinder the reader’s capability to comprehend the meaning behind the words. These detailed descriptions in comparison make it so that Zacks and Treiman’s article is lacking in detail, as if they are skimming through facts themselves. This can be interpreted in two ways: they are assuming the reader will just take their word considering that they are the experts writing this information out, or that they are assuming their audience wants something short to read (considering the subject matter). This would essentially make their logos appeal lacking in substance.
And while the reader can trust that they are receiving a professional’s opinion and analysis in this article, Zacks and Treiman do not really delve into the opposite side of the argument and discuss why the reader shouldn’t trust counterarguments. As discussed by a journalist for Life Hacker, “in my hunt for studies backing up speed-reading claims, I found most research was done by the companies who sell the speed-reading methods,” (Klosowski). It does not seem very fitting that Zacks and Treiman, especially since they are using a literature review about speed-reading research, would miss out on informing the reader that research supporting speed-reading claims has corporate biases. Their message instead to the reader is mainly based on the reader’s trust in their professional assessment that counter-arguments should not be trusted. Klosowski also discusses different types of speed-reading methods (he includes skimming in his explanaton) and discusses certain specialists’ opinion about each one. This reiterates to a lack of efficiency in Zacks and Treiman’s logos appeal. There simply isn’t enough to go on in their article.
Lastly, Zacks and Treiman do use the pathos appeal, but to a very minor extent. The title alone is an example of this, since “Sorry, You Can’t Speed Read” almost reads as though they are directly speaking to a disappointed reader. Furthermore, the article opens up with a Woody Allen joke: “I read War and Peace in 20 minutes It’s about Russia,” (Zacks and Treiman). For audience members who are familiar with the novel, it is a long novel written by Leo Tolstoy. The joke is meant to illuminate how little about Russia the plot is centered on. A better explanation of War and Peace would be a story “set during Russia’s involvement in the Napoleonic War. The book is famous (or perhaps infamous) for its dense web of characters and convoluted story line,” (Gattas). Describing War and Peace as just a story about Russia highlights the severely misinformed interpretation of the novel, and illustrates the issue Zacks and Treiman is discussing very well. It fits under the ethos appeal since it is a joke, and it is meant to make the readers laugh and agree with their message. This is further emphasized since they finish the article with “just don’t expect to read War and Peace in 20 minutes,” (Zacks and Treiman).
Overall, Zacks and Treiman’s rhetoric is effective. Their ethos appeal is strong considering their position as the right authorities to discuss the topic. Their pathos appeal, while small, is effective still because they successfully evoke the emotional reactions they mean to evoke in the reader (this would be disappointment and laughter). Their attempt at appealing to the emotions also supports their overall message. Their logos appeal is their weakest aspect, especially when it is compared with other articles on the same subject – Zacks and Treiman are literally skimming through an immense amount of detail. But considering that they are an authority in brain sciences, it may be possible that a reader will overlook the lack of information and simply trust in what they have to say. This would mean that for some readers, their logos appeal is just as effective as the others.
Works Cited
Gattas, Toya. “War and Peace.” Insights. Insights Magazine, 14 April 2016. Web. 17 April 2016.
Klosowski, Thorin. “The Truth About Speed Reading.” Life Hacker. n.p., 13 March 2014. Web. 17 April 2016.
Oxenham, Simon. “The Harsh Truth About Speed-Reading.” The Daily Dot. n.p., 10 April 2016. Web. 17 April 2016.
Zacks, Jeffrey M., and Treiman, Rebecca. “Sorry, You Can’t Speed Read.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 15 April 2016. Web. 17 April 2016.
