the reader is convinced in Spector's argument that Celeron chips are a better deal. To strengthen his argument further, Spector makes use of rebuttals to claims that support the PII-450. By using rebuttals as evidence to tarnish the reputation of the PII chip, Spector is successful in reinforcing his point in the reader's mind. Although he acknowledges that the "PII-450 performed 8% faster than[the] PII-400," he describes the boost as "unnoticeable" and "insignificant" (56) for the "$140 to $300 [the reader will spend] for a PC that's not much faster on business apps" (55). When it comes to games, Spector appears impressed by the PII-450 for it "outstripped [the] fastest PII-400" (56). However, he dismisses this event because the "results were due in large part to the impressive Millennium G2000 graphics card that [the PII-450] machines use[d]" (56). The use of rebuttals allows Spector to brush off the superiority of the PII. Spector provides the final blow with statistics and data. Abundant statistics and charts are present in the article to help Spector support his thesis. The statistics include percentage values like "8 percent faster" and "3 percent variation" (56), computer prices such as "$2675 Compaq Deskpro [and] $999 Avanta E333" (57), and other numbers like "99 frames per second [and] score of 176" (56). In addition to statistics, Spector uses precise, graphical, and well-organized charts that show actual lab results to indicate the performance of the Celeron against the PII. Legends and other information necessary to understand the charts are provided. At a single glance, the reader sees that the Celeron performed as well as a PII-333 with scores of 171 and 172, respectively. However, the PII-450 received an insurmountable score of 198 (56). Upon assessing the scores, the reader might question Spector's credibility for there is a huge difference. However, an anticipating Spector, uses another chart entitled, "What Yo...
