Humanities teacher, Joshua G. writes a excerpt towards a student discussing the effects of fidget spinners.The argumentative question that the discussion is based upon is, “can fidget spinners induce further concentration of students?” Joshua responds to the students opinion  by stating his beliefs of how fidget spinners are a physical distraction for the mind itself. Throughout the blog post parallelism is incorporated along with examples that defend his point of how fidget spinning stated by Gibb’s, “is just another craving need that needs to be crushed.” Parallelism enhances the post when the author uses the word “if” multiple times to try and soften his firm examples that defend his argument. By having parallelism present within the piece it sets up for clear organizational argument to help further defend his viewpoint of the topic.

Joshua wrote, “if the coddling of human beings and our craving tendencies are not stopped they will only expand further.” From stating this fact Joshua shares the deeper meaning behind his belief of why he disagrees with physical distractions for the mind. In the beginning of the blog post Joshua opens with an anecdote, “I would like to assume for just a moment that fidget spinners do actually help students concentrate.” By expressing this at the beginning, Joshua lures the reader in by stating that he is agreeing to disagree, but in a unique sarcastic tone. The authors tone overall allures the argumentative topic of the piece, and allows the reader into a new depth of understanding Joshua's perspective. Overall Joshua is stating how mankind needs to learn how to overcome the need of mind distractions, whether or not that distraction is the use of fidget spinners.