Our world today is characterized by efficiency -- from minor things, such as making coffee in the morning, to
exploits as grand as determining the most effective and aerodynamic structure for a common day fuselage.
Now imagine our world, one that strives for efficiency, without Internet.
The person who reads this may not have to imagine! S/he may be twice your ge and able to easily remember the years before the Internet was such a big factor. In general, it is not good to call on the reader to reflect on something (i.e. Imagine a world..."). It is better to write in the first person perspective I imagine that the world was...
This essay has some logical flaws, and it asks the reader to accept as truth some very weak claims. For example, people hae committed heinous crimes since long before the advent of the Internet. It is a logical flaw when you blame the Internet for what criminals have done with it.
The dilemma at our hand is that people (what people, all people?) do not acknowledge the fact (you cannot state as fact something that is as ambiguous as this) that even though the Internet might help with
tasks ranging from making our coffee in the morning to flying across the Atlantic, the Internet is also the main contributor to social and personal chaos and society's demise.------ a contributor to chaos and demise?
at the end of this paragraph, I have already decided that this essay is written by someone who has a warped view. I'm sorry to be critical!!
I think you should read some strong arguments to see what a strong argument consists of. There is no substitute for reading strong arguments.
If I could find a strong argument that the Internet is going to cause society's demise, I would refer you to it as an example, but since I cannot, I will refer you to this article, which makes a strong argument
lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol58/issue3/steiker.pdf
In a strong argument, the writer does not say anything that is unsubstantiated, because she does not want her credibility compromised.
:-) good luck!!!