Throughout his argument against fidget spinners, Joshua shifts his tone and moves from one point to another using rhetorical devices. By using an assumption in the beginning, he gives the reader a thought to contemplate: that fidget spinners actually help students. He quickly critisizes this hypothetical situation by using examples like cigarettes helping writers to concentrate, something not actually beneficial to the writer but rather something to fidget with. Joshua uses these examples to further his argument that fidget spinners really are just distractions to students. Joshua continues to note this by using a parallel structure of hypotheticals, using the word “if” followed by a harsher statement. This use of parallelism shifts the tone from a hypothetical statement to a real life result. For example, he states, “If a mind craves physical distraction and agitation in order to learn, such needs are not good, but awful.” His tone shifts from the first part of the “if” statements as a contemplative tone to a condemning and harsh tone in the second part of the sentence. He also uses diction to show this shift in tone with qualifications like “not.” He uses “not” in these parallel structures to soften the first part of his claim, sharpening the contrast of what comes next. For instance, he writes phrases like “Not simply annoying, but a little dangerous” and, “Such needs are not good, but awful.” At the end of his argument, he comments on the way this issue should be dealt with--by crushing and not coddling this desire to constantly be distracted in the form of fidget spinners.