In section one the claim is that through his antidotes and experiences Kirn can see both sides of multitasking. The second section’s claim is about how eventually multitasking will fall just like his other financial examples. The third section has a claim on how Americans are so caught up in the pop-cauterization and believe that we always need to be going somewhere.The fourth’s claim is how he is backed up statistically by several university studies. In the fifth, he claims that the definition of multitasking can be summed up by a metaphor comparing us to computers. The sixth goes back to the anecdote and how he refused to get a double tasking phone again so he wont have that problem. The seventh claim is that over the outrageous extent that you should go to while multitasking. In the eighth he claims that the multitasking of his boss caused him extensive humiliation. The claim in section ten was made to express how expensive it is to multitask. In section ten he analyses why he spent almost three hundred dollars because of a distracting multitask. Section eleven was a claim of how he could be pushed off the edge by a simple multitasking activity. The final section concludes the paper by bringing the essay back to his original story and prove that the multitasking that was thought to be such a good thing ended out to be negative too.
Each section connects back to the central claim that multitasking will go away in a crash, because it is so dangerous for us. Kirn started out the essay talking about simpler times and a fond childhood memory. Then he talked about how it was just going to crash. He talked about pop culture and how the modern times wont let us be content doing one thing at a time and tied that into the ending. The body include statistics to back his claim. Kirn also concluded the essay with that same childhood story form the beginning but spun it around to show how it’s multitasking can be a bad thing.
