Debate Partner Article Analysis

                  The tone is this article is very factual and a little bland.  For example, the author says “The Mellon Foundation has prepared studies showing that between 1970 and 2000 the typical US academic research library will lose nearly all its purchasing power [Cummings 1992].”  He uses facts and statistics from studies to prove his point. This method can be effective in some ways, but he isn’t communicating to the audience directly very much.  He also shows graphs about Library Economics, which further shows his straightforward tone.  The author also throws this fact into the article: “Only 10% of what the university spends on its library is paying for the original production of information, in summary. If we imagine that a new distribution system could be introduced which sent electronic information directly to the desks of students and scholars, 90% of the money in the system is available to pay for it.”  He has a very factual and neat style of writing.  He breaks up the sections of his article by numbers, for example the section numbered one is labeled introduction, the section numbered two is labeled advantages of digital libraries, and so on.  These breaks in his writing make it easy for the audience to follow and separate one of his ideas from another.  I think this type of organization and style is good because it helps break up a lengthy article.  I also like the insertion of graphs and pictures because it provides the reader a visual to understand the facts and statistics being stated.  He also addresses the issue of who will run the online libraries by saying, “it is likely that provision of current material will move back towards the publishers.”  The author had a very strong argument for online libraries.  He essentially covered every area of question from who will run it, how much it will cost, how beneficial they are, and more.  However, he did not address the opposing argument of the article very much, or noticeably.  He had strong facts and points about his opinion, but he never brought in the opinion of people who are for libraries.  This could potentially weaken his argument because it is his complete biased opinion for online libraries instead of points from the opposing argument.  Throughout the entire article, the author stays consistent in his tone and his style.  The entire article is broken up by numbered sections along with pictures and graphs, and his tone remains factual and perhaps “boring”.  Despite this, he makes an extremely strong argument for the use of online books as opposed to real libraries.