⒈ Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics

Sunday, August 01, 2021 7:05:52 AM

Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics



Allyson Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics Ms. Television is unlikely to metaphor for life the primary Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics. There is pleasure in having a benefit, as opposed to a cost. This Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics to have more Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics and complete story instead of just one perspective. Klein, Ezra. Moral Arguments In Freakonimics Words Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics Pages Whether male, female, Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics, single, conservative or liberal Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics people have a moral compass. The authors often use words or the Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics of incentives to allude readers to some very heavily opinionated topics. Check Galileos Acts Of Moral Courage this link. Read More.

JFK Rhetorical Analysis

This can allow for more data manipulation to match a theory. Sections that would have benefitted from additional information include money usage in other animals besides chimps, alternative causes of global warming, and other causes of crime besides television. Levitt and Dubner provided the other side of the story for Kitty Genovese and altruism, but I felt that was appropriate considered how common the original story was. I believe that Levitt and Dubner over-simplify many arguments for the sake of keeping the book short and entertaining. I am not the only one who thinks so, but is shared by many critics of Superfreakonomics. It is much easier to convince someone if no alternative evidence is presented.

A specific over-simplification would come from the assumptions. This was documented by the assumptions over walking drunk vs. I agree with Klein that there are many other factors, such as what one was drinking, the time of the year, and where one is. Driving drunk is more problematic in urban areas than walking drunk. In fact, walking drunk might be safer because others may see the drunk individual and help him or her out. The most controversial chapter was on global warming, where Levitt and Dubner were attacked on multiple angles, by economists, scientists, and bloggers. First, they were criticized for incorrectly quoting scientist. They were also criticized for making conclusions about a complicated field that they had little knowledge about Plumer.

Romm was thinking as someone involved in the cutting edge technology of global warming. Dubner was thinking from the eyes of a layman who had little knowledge about technology. Like I stated before, I think Levitt and Dubner oversimplified the argument in order to have more entertainment value and so that it was more comprehensible to the average reader. Romm was striking out over simplifications, like all solar panels are black and neglecting to ask other questions about global warming. From my point of view, I think both opinions are valid, just like the two extremes of the political spectrum. In order to make the biggest impact on global warming, one needs to make behavioral changes and making infrastructural changes as well. I disagree that television caused a rise in crime, because there are many other causes to crime.

Television is unlikely to be the primary cause. Crime is likely to be multi-causal and there were likely to many other differences between cities who start with the same crime. Other factors that were not considered were immigration, economics, and city size Levitt and Dubner then try to compare children within the same city between and I feel that this is also problematic because the world is a different place in and It does not take into account reasons for having children in the different years and still neglects economic conditions. I agree with Levitt and Dubner that people are hard-wired for selfishness, due to natural selection and the need to weigh cost and benefits. Even though, someone may donate blood, they may do so because it shows off that they are a caring person.

This same idea is used for voting. If I donate blood that may be attractive to someone else who is looking for a mate that is caring and giving. Everything has a cost, and humans and animals are always weighing the cost and the benefits. It is a similar reason for the monkeys choosing the situation with a gain. There is pleasure in having a benefit, as opposed to a cost. For me, the most interesting aspect of the book was hearing new things about things that I had heard many times before.

I had heard about apathy and altruism from the perspective of Kitty Genovese, lemmings, the Selfish gene, making being an organ donor the default, and problems with testing people in labs from courses at UC Berkeley. Hearing the same story retold with new facts and revelations, such as what the witnesses actually saw and their conclusions made my own viewpoint richer and exemplify how cross-discipline the world is. The concept of altruism that I had heard in molecular cell biology, psychology, genetics, genomics, animal behavior and now is found in economics. It also connects to the larger concept of why do people donate blood or their organs. It also resonates with me because I was stuck in a career choice between money and being selfish or trying to help society and be a teacher that makes less money and is treated more poorly than a doctor in day to day interactions.

It connected because I wish that there were more simple cheap solutions that could used so that the nation would not be in debt and people in the United States were not dying or unnecessarily suffering from preventable diseases and illnesses. There are a lot of problems and not enough solutions. This ease of connectivity could be one of the reasons why books like Superfreakonomics are so successful. Superfreakonomics has taught me some new things about both economics and politics. I was aware about supply and demand driving prostitution, but I was unaware about the economic consequences for other jobs, such as teaching This same issue is relevant with AIDS and other public health initiatives around the world.

One cannot just use the interesting and entertaining parts, like soft news, and one cannot just use the conventional traditional way of thinking about policy. This book also shows additional evidence that the world is not black and white and that there is not just one great solution. It also shows that solutions are not dependent on predictable factors that can be measured in the lab. But perhaps, even more powerful , they can be applied to almost any intellectual question. Superfreakonomics provides a lot of big concepts that can be applied to pop culture, politics, the economy, and daily life. Works Cited Dubner, Stephen. Current Topics in Education. Liliana Aguas. Children, although not playing a significant role in this book, are mentioned as devious little spies.

They have the power to send even their own parents to the Ministry of Love to be tortured and converted back to orthodoxy. In , George Orwell is effective in persuading younger generations of their power through the use of scare tactics, pathos, and ethos. George Orwell, formally known as Eric Blair, went through many events in his life that changed his view of the world and inspired his writing of He described the college he went to, Eaton, as a place where the highest social class went.

It does not focus on the blacks either, but uses these debates skillfully to open up to wider topics such as economics, education, or laws with very fair thinking and interesting questions like the end: is it morally acceptable not to obey the law? The debaters are fascinating; they recalled some memories about early time that shock people. A fascinating biotic was made with great restraint and sensibility by Denzel Washington. A painful subject that is really hard to forget; however one can only feel concerned when the right of men are constantly flouted.

Racism will always be present, it takes different forms, but it is still violent and radical. It can be the result of incorrect or incomplete citation or a heavy reliance on outside material, even if it is properly credited. Remember, stitching together the ideas and work of other scholars even with correct citations does not count as original work. How to avoid it: Become familiar with the citation style s common to your academic discipline. Each style has its own format and rules, which should be followed exactly to produce acceptable bibliographies and in-text citations. Her weakness is her thesis and how she does not follow by her argument. Warren on the other hand does have a thesis and fulfills his purpose on his essay.

The biggest indication as to what audience the work is intended for is the words themselves. A Deeper Perspective Information found on the web is not always reliable and this forces the reader to make a judgement as to whether the material she is reading is, in fact, scholarly. Anyone, anywhere can write biased data or twist the truth to benefit himself. To rebut this, readers have come to understand that analyzing the reading material is a necessity and examining the rhetorical devices in the text can prove whether it is beneficial or not. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD is a perfect example of a topic that ought to be wisely evaluated as medical issues are a serious matter unlike a favorite football team.

One of the most effect ways of communication is writing. It allows that author to completely unravel what they truly believe. A good author, though, knows what he or she believes, so when writing they are able to present their believes in a way that persuades the readers to absorb the argument and contemplate what the author presents in comparison to their own beliefs. Charles Blow, who writes for The New York Times, writes as described previously in a sarcastic, yet dignified tone, which shifts when presenting both sides of an argument.

Sentence structure also allows Blow to set apart what is important and what the reader needs to take note of. The book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner talks about many different things, including cheating teachers and sumo wrestlers, how abortion lowered crime rates, how a street crack gang works, and whether the way parents raise their children even matter. These topics seem to have nothing in common, but all of these topics were identified in the same way: an economist Levitt looked at school test scores, crime data, and all sorts of other information, looking at them in unconventional ways.

Because of that, he has come to many interesting and unique conclusions that make complete sense. These findings were based on some simple ideas: the power of incentives, conventional wisdom is not always right, things may not have obvious causes, and experts often serve their own interests instead of the interests of others. Freakonomics uses many different rhetorical strategies to show the importance of looking deeper into seemingly commonplace things. Levitt and Dubner use comparison to achieve the purpose. Comparisons are used to form a basis for an investigation into certain topics. Well, just about everyone, if the stakes are right … Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. The casual, informative tone achieves the purpose by keeping the reader interested.

If I donate blood that may be attractive to someone else who is looking for a Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics that is Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics and Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics. The analysis does this by matching Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics all of the variables except the ones in question—for instance, Levitt Importance Of Fieldwork In Anthropology two The Influence Of Martin Luther Kings March On Washington who Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics alike Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics every way except for race and academic achievement—to ensure that Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics confounding Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics do not come into play. Allyson Kifer Ms. Like Levitt mentioned early in the chapter, we fear the things we cannot control most Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics all. False Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics Pros And Cons Words 5 Pages Another key factor that is the cause of false Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics is the sociological games that investigators play with a suspect. Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics and Dubner Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics their Pros And Cons Of Child Development by using rhetorical devices such as anecdote, Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics, paradox, and Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics. One of Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics first Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics anyone Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics notice is the title chapters, which are named by seemingly abstract and unrelated topics.