Everyone has their own personal opinions and arguments on whether TV can be good for the mind or just another screen that we can stare at mindlessly for hours. Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson and Breaking Out of the Idiot Box written by Dana Stevens, both authors address opposing arguments in their articles. Both articles have strengths and weaknesses. From Johnson's obvious title, readers clearly know his point: Watching TV can make you smarter. Steven Johnson's article is filled with information and research to logically support his statement, but his outdated graphics and show examples can often be confusing to the reader. For Dana Stevens, on the other hand, she provides a valid argument; that TV can't make you smart, but fails to back up her statement with research, leaving the reader perplexed as to why they can't learn from TV. Of the two articles, Steven Johnson does a better job of informing, teaching, and proving his point that television can make you smarter to his audience. Watching TV Makes You Smarter grabs the attention of any reader, whether they are or not. TV fan or not. Johnson can please all audiences in his article. The author attracts a sympathetic reader by incorporating scripts from television shows such as ER and discusses shows like The Sopranos and 24 which were popular at the time the article was written. The antagonistic audience sees charts and key examples of research that prove the author's reasoning. For the apathetic and ignorant, by the end of the article both are able to make their own decision about whether watching TV can make you smarter. Steven Johnson's article was printed in the middle of a paper.... ..and takes the reader away from the main idea of ​​the article. She also lets her opinion get in the way of writing her article, making it difficult for the reader to find facts and logical arguments. All things considered, Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson and Breaking Out of the Idiot Box by Dana Stevens both have their positives and negatives. Dana Stevens' article has some good arguments, but is overshadowed by personal opinions and crude comments, making her article only aimed at a sympathetic and ignorant audience. Steven Johnson may use outdated television shows as examples, but he does a better job of informing, teaching, and proving his point that television can make you smarter. Johnson can gain the trust of an antagonistic, sympathetic, apathetic, and ignorant public through his article, thus making his argument more valid than Dana Stevens'..