Reading too much into an issue can sometimes make the reasoning sound exaggerated. Pete Hamill wrote "Crack and the Box" to explain why he feels that watching television in excess has the same effects as doing drugs and, as he states, should be dealt with appropriately. He begins by comparing the children of a drug addict to the way the woman reacted to drugs. Hamill states that both drugs and television have the effect of having a person escape from reality. Once the author explains this point, he goes on to argue that when a person watches television the information absorbed is not earned, just as he says drugs' high is not earned either. His solution is to limit children's viewing habits, and teaching them television in schools. The author exaggerates his argument however, as television does not necessarily hand you every answer, nor would watchers always choose television over their fathers.
Given Pete Hamill’s opinion that watching television is too much like doing drugs, he also points out that both television and drugs “absorb” their users/viewers. When the author compares these two actions to having the same effect on their respective users, he only offers one study to explain his point. He shares the Michigan State University survey that says in the eighties a number of people said they would give up their fathers before television, and goes on to assume the same for drug addicts and their drugs. Even though this comparison is a valid point, Hamill forgets to review his research and see how the new millennium responds to the same survey. Not only that, but if the data was not available, he should not have shared the information, as it only makes the reader question the validity of his argument.
Even though Hamill loses some part of his argument when mentioning the Michigan State University study, he makes a good point when talking of the immediate effects of drugs and television. He states that both television and drugs take one “out of the real world,” and that both effects on mood are not “earned.” As Hamill argues, when watching television or using drugs, the users are numb to reality and miss out on the real world. He expresses an interesting opinion, which he bases on the common actions that one observes in everyday life. However, when he voices this argument, Hamill forgets to think of a counter-argument, which makes his opinion weak. Not every television show gives their watchers the answer easily. Shows that have the purpose of getting their viewer thinking do not give answers away easily, unlike drugs. Therefore, even though his is a good point, Hamill fails to see the other view to his opinion.
When continuing along the author’s essay, one comes across a sentence that, in short, states that television and junkies only care about their addiction “with no desire for choice.” This is not very well supported. Hamill might claim this is a true statement, but he does not go in-depth to explain why he feels this way. When reading the affirmation, one begins questioning if it is true. Do television watchers really have no desire for choice? Usually, someone can just click back and forth to change channels if they are not content with what they see. This would mean that watchers do have some type of choice that they have a desire to make, unlike Hamill states.
To wrap up his argument, he says children should be taught to view television differently as a school subject, but also does not explain why this would be important. In short, even though Pete Hamill makes good arguments and gives supporting details as to why he feels the way he does, he also takes counter-arguments for granted. By doing this, he weakens his reasoning, and sounds exaggerated when explaining himself.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com