- Position1 of 3›
- Yes, tablets should replace textbooks.
One tablet can hold all the textbooks for different subjects.
The argument
A single tablet can hold several textbooks. By replacing textbooks with tablets, the likelihood of backpack-related injuries among children will decrease. On average, the weight of a student's backpack is between 12 and 20 pounds (15% to 30% of a student's body mass). In 2016, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) claimed that more than 6,300 children aged 5 to 18 years old were sent to emergency rooms to address backpack-related injuries. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons advises parents to assist their children in preventing neck, back, and shoulder pain by limiting the amount of items in their backpacks. Since the average weight of a tablet is only 1.75 pounds, adding a tablet to a student's backpack will not increase its weight drastically. In addition to textbooks, tablets can also store countless files such as tests, quizzes, and homework. Students, therefore, will have less physical papers to carry, thereby decreasing the weight of their backpacks even further.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The average tablet might weigh around 1.75 pounds, but this does not factor in the tablet's additional accessories, such as chargers, USB cables, keyboards, and carrying cases. Additionally, there are books that do not offer digital versions/copies for tablets, which makes tablets a less suitable choice for many schools and students.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise conflates two different things: the injury figures cover backpacks generally, whose contents include laptops, sports kit, instruments and lunch as well as books, so removing textbooks reduces a portion of a load the argument has not shown is mostly books. [Rejecting P2] The device weight also excludes the case, charger and often a keyboard, and schools that go digital rarely eliminate paper entirely; more importantly, weight is a narrow ground for a decision about replacing textbooks, which turns on comprehension, cost, access at home and screen time — none of which the argument addresses.