Ss Copy of Article 2 (2%) -.docx (1,4 MB)
Article 2 (2%)
Read the text and answer the questions:
Your Smartphone Should Be Built to Last
April 25, 2021
By Damon Beres
Mr. Beres is a journalist whose work focuses on the effects of technology on people and the planet. He co-founded the publication OneZero at Medium.
Years from now, what creature will digest the new iPads and AirTags that Apple announced on Tuesday? What soil will absorb their metals?
The shiny gadgets of today will be waste tomorrow. As you eye that upgraded tablet, consider that Apple shipped so many new iPads last year that if they were all laid flat and stacked, they would be about as tall as 862 Empire State Buildings. Then think about whatever old iPad of yours is languishing now in some unknown place.
Manufacturers don’t talk much about this turnover when they announce the big new thing that will replace your mostly just as good old thing. This is all by design. There’s a term for it: planned obsolescence or designing a product with an intentionally limited life span. Ever try to get your TV repaired? why? We all know the answer. They are greedy manufacturers who just seek after profit.
Apple, Samsung, Sony and other manufacturers of high-tech electronics release waves of new hardware every year even as the tide of screens and circuitry is engulfing us in discarded devices.
Now there is a movement afoot to change that approach.
This year, the French government began requiring tech manufacturers to list an “indice de réparabilité,” a repairability score, on product pages for items like the iPhone and MacBook. If a device can be repaired, then its life can be extended, saving consumers money and the planet the burden of so many trashed gadgets. None of Apple’s iPhones or MacBooks earned above a 7, with 10 being the top score — making the company a “C student at best,” the website Grist noted. Other manufacturers like Microsoft and Samsung fared about the same. Equipped with this knowledge, consumers can make better choices about which products to buy. If unrepairable gadgets don’t sell, manufacturers will change course.
Some 59 million tons of old TVs, computer, screens, smartphones, washers, and other electronics are discarded every year. This waste is dangerous. Batteries explode in recycling facilities. Toxic substances like mercury leach into soil and groundwater and disperse into the air. Manufacturing flat screens add to the atmosphere. What’s next? Humans will not find usable resources and will die not because of any war but because of technology.
We need tech companies like Apple — so progressive in so many ways — to lead the charge to solve this problem. If they won’t, governments must make them.
France is not alone in stepping into this mess. The movement is in the United States as well. More than a dozen states are considering so-called right-to-repair legislation, a rare, shared concern between political parties centered on the idea that manufacturers should not restrict access to information and parts that would allow independent shops to fix busted gadgets.
New York State Assemblymember Patricia Fahy will hold a virtual town hall on the topic on May 5. Anyone can attend. And the Federal Trade Commission is expected to release a long-delayed report soon on repair restrictions in consumer technology that could set the stage for a bigger push from the Biden administration.
Repairability is a surefire path toward longevity. Items become waste when they are no longer useful. Some of this is the simple march of progress. Other times, it is much harder to see the justification, such as when a Sonos speaker is cut off from software updates seemingly overnight.
Although tech companies will often speak of sustainability, many lobby against repair legislation, fearful it will loosen their control and eat into their profits. This can lead to a sort of cognitive dissonance.
Apple’s annual environmental report, published this month, asserts a commitment to device longevity and sustainability.
There’s the issue in a nutshell: Sustainability matters, but the marketable design appears to matter more to these companies. Consumers are urged to upgrade their devices annually. Well, north of 1 billion smartphones were shipped in 2020 — and it was a sluggish year because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Manufacturers must do better. Their devices must be repairable by all and kept compatible with software updates for as long as possible, not artificially obsoleted. Consumers should support right-to-repair legislation. Buy what you please, be it a fancy fridge or a smartphone — no one is changing the world by holding on to an iPhone 7 for an extra year — but know to ask three simple questions when you’re shopping: “How long will this last?” “How will I get it fixed when it breaks?” and “How will I recycle this when I need a new device?” Follow through and get the thing fixed or take it to a trustworthy recycler when it’s time. (Apple’s store employees can help with this step, for instance.)
In this world, the damage is a certainty. But we cannot leave things broken: A problem of our creation is a problem that can be fixed.
1.What is the main issue/idea of this article? Old devices like phones, TV, and so on To be consumed, and damage that cannot be repaired and Its impact on the people and planet.
2.What is the writer’s claim? What is he trying to prove in this article? Manufacturers must do better and solve restricted access to information and parts that wouldn’t allow independent shops to fix busted gadgets.
3.What is the writer’s position? Is he for or against working from home?
4.What are the reasons behind the writer’s opinion? How many are they? Are they good reasons? The writer cites a number of reasons for his claim The first reason is that a lot of smartphones are produced and not repaired. The second reason is the impact of dangerous waste from the explosion of batteries, the leaking of toxic substances into the soil and groundwater, and spreading through the air. The reasons seem to be because it’s based on stating facts.
5.What kind of evidence does the writer use? How does he support his argument? Does he use evidence from personal experience, examples, statistics, research, observations, logical sequence of ideas, testimonies, etc.? Expert's opinion (New York State Assembly member Patricia) , facts and statistics
6.Is there a variety in the use of evidence?
7.Is the evidence provided enough, accurate, relevant, and well-supported?
8.Does the evidence come from sources? What kind of sources? the website Grist, Apple’s annual environmental report
9.Are these sources relevant, reliable, accurate, and up to date?
10.How does the writer try to convince the reader (Appeals)? How does the writer try to affect the reader? Does he use vivid language/moving examples that tickle the reader’s feelings? Does he rely on providing much data to support his argument? Does he seem to be knowledgeable about the topic and fair in presenting his argument? Ethos ,
11.Is there a balance in the use of appeals? Does the writer use one of these strategies more than the others? How does that affect the reader? Does it strengthen or weaken the argument?
12.Are there any logical fallacies in the article? Are there any weaknesses in the writer’s arguments/reasons/logic? Does he oversimplify what the opponents say? Does he rely on what the majority of people think even if that is not necessarily true? Does he refer to an authority figure to support his argument? Does he reach conclusions based on insufficient evidence? Etc.
13.What could be the opposing point of view to the writer’s argument? What could be the reasons behind this view?
