Analysis Of The Book ' Freakonomics ' By Steven D. Levitt

In the essay written by Joey Franklin, the author exposes his own internal conflict, as well as the existing prejudice against fast food restaurant workers. The work is well developed, with the use of witty diction and tone, in addition to the appeals to rhetorical devices.

In the book Freakonomics, written by economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubne, the authors go through different parts of modern life to show how economics describes why people act a certain way as well as the way specific outcomes occur. They look into different aspects of society and view them with different perspectives. With the use of specific data and the fundamentals of economics, the very obscure comparisons and the different chapters in the book show correlation between economics and human nature. The main point of this book is to explain a few fundamental ideas through the answers of strange questions and how they play a major role in society.

After reading Chapter 3 of “High Price” by Dr. Carl Hart, I learned he lived with his mother and father until the as halfway thru the second grade. Then got a divorce and he stayed with his father for about two week, but once his father realized that he was unable to take care, he then went to live with his Big Mama. His great grandmother was a Bahamian woman. She came to the United States when she was a young adult. His big mama was a women who believed and stressed that going school and being self sufficient was important. She believed that a black men in this society had no chance if they weren’t educated. Dr. Carl Hart’s family based their family morals off of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois, based on the beliefs of the his grandmother and great grandmother. His great grandmother followed role of W. E. B. DuBois, because she believed that education was important and this was a way for African Americans can advance. Although his great grandmother believed that education was important, she did not believe that it would not help someone of his race in a world where racism played a big part of being successful. Carl’s father would promise to pick him up on the weekends and would never show or even showed up drunk. Although his father was an alcoholic, Carl didn’t mind it he just wanted to be around him. Being the his great grandmother loved him dearly, his great grandmother loved him and always had his back. When Carl’s father didn’t play a the role of being a

The intended audience of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s Freakonomics is made up of middle class Americans and comprised of adults and teenagers with a basic education and a broad knowledge of a wide range of subjects. Since Levitt and Dubner reference a large variety of topics, it is imperative for the audience to also be familiar with a wide variety of subjects or at the very least to be aware of popular culture and government. For example, when Levitt and Dubner reference a Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, where a young woman named Norma McCorvey was “...the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit seeking to legalize abortion” they establish their audience as one that would be educated enough to know the fundamentals of some of the most important events in American history (Levitt and Dubner 5). By referencing the Roe v. Wade case, a court case which is generally considered to be common knowledge for Americans, Levitt and Dubner reveal that their audience must be comprised of

​Freakonomics is a book that explores the many possibilities of why some things are the way they are. Principles of everyday life are examined and explained while Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner search for logic in statistical economics. This book answers the questions: how can things affect what people do, why are things the way they are, and why experts routinely make up statistics. This book highlights the commonalities between schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers as well as the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents, the life of drug dealers, criminals, and the art of parenting.

The author Steven Levitt studied economics at Harvard University and MIT. He is primarily known for his work in the field of crime. The title Freakonomics means a study of economics based on the principles of incentives. The title is related to the book since he emphasizes how incentives drive and affect people’s actions. Although this book does not have a single theme, the main focus of the book is a new way of interpreting the world using economic tools. He explores incentives, information asymmetry, conventional wisdom, crime and abortion, and parenting throughout the six chapters of the book.

In chapter 2 of Freakonomics the main argument is that the absence of information can be used for personal gain. The main example used to display this tactic is when the KKK is compared to real estate agents. Although the crafty practice of real estate agents is in no way similar to the horrors of the KKK, they have a distinct similarity when it comes to the hoarding of information. The majority of the chapter focuses on the history of the KKK and Stetson Kennedy’s effort to stop it through the infiltration and exposure via radio of the Klan. Since the Klan was dependant on their violent—despite not being extremely violent—reputation, the disclosure of the information they had withheld from the public rendered them powerless. The narrators

The author is very affective with his argument, he uses logos and rhetorical questions the most to make the audience form their own opinions, but also listen to his. The main point in this book, Freakonomics, written by Steven Levitt, is to show that economics can explain many phenomenons. Levitt uses logos and rhetorical devices the most to display this argument. The audience is made to question if “It might be worthwhile to step back and ask a rudimentary question; what is a gun?” (Levitt 118). The audience asked to think about what the consequences of a gun can be. Levitt also uses data so show that these moments can be discomforting and dangerous. The most discomforting example that Levitt provided was that “The most famous gun-control

The book’s fourth chapter, “Where have All the Criminals Gone?” in particular, includes several subjects the authors acknowledge will “provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections” (140). By this point, readers already know the authors’ view that the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade caused the drop in crime during the 1990s because this idea first appears on page four. Rather than simply explaining why abortion lowered crime rates, Levitt and Dubner use a chart to introduce seven explanations commonly cited by experts for the sudden drop in crime during the 1990s, then examine the authenticity of each one. The first possible cause is “a fairly uncontroversial one: the strong economy”

Pathos. Being a book of nonfiction and being written with the purpose of educating others, Levitt and Dubner do not hesitate to throw logistics on what they talk about. The title of this chapter asked what schoolteachers and sumo-wrestlers have in common and anyone would be surprised by how much they actually do in fact have in common. A usage of pathos used by Levitt and Dubner is “ Whatever the incentive, whatever the situation, dishonest people will try to gain an advantage by whatever means necessary”(page 21), in saying this, Levitt and Dubner want you to grasp your mind around the fact that basically people will do whatever they need to do. The whole chapter

Assess sociological explanations of the role of the mass media in creating moral panics about crime and deviance:

Many, if not most, of the people in today's generation are constantly judged by others and even themselves based on what their identity comprises of. The concept of racial injustice and inequality among ethnic minorities constantly fills the media. Women's rights issues seem to arise rapidly whenever a single female is mistreated in the slightest way. The debate on homosexuality is also an enormous topic in our social lives today, with millions of supporters for it, but also millions against it. This internal segregation within our own human population is nothing new, since it has been continuing ever since verbal and written communication with each other has existed. All these components, and many more, are a huge part of what identifies a

In chapter 4 the chapter considers a variety of possible explanations for the significant drop in crime and crime rates that occurred in the 1990s. Based on articles that appeared in the country’s largest newspapers, the authors compile a list of the leading, commonly offered explanations. The next step is to systematically examine each explanation and consider whether available data support the explanation. What the authors, in fact, demonstrate is that in all but three cases–increased reliance on prisons, increased number of police, and changes in illegal drug markets–correlation was erroneously interpreted as causation and in some cases, the correlation wasn’t even that strong.

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of crime‐related commodities such as security alarms, crime related television programs, and general merchandise. This essay will explore the commodification of crime by critically examining rising crime rates, increasing sales of crime‐associated and targeted products during the period when crime increases only slightly are explained as capitalism 's ability to form commodities from both social problems and deviance. Using secondary data, this essay will describe these crime trends and the consumption of crime commodities . Although the media quite clearly contribute to increasing concerns about victimization while crime was stable, the process of commodity exchange for crime goods is far from simply a media‐induced phenomenon . This essay uses a critical approach to analyse these conflicting developments and will attempt to show the commodification of crime is exploited by capitalism with particular focus on the commodification of sex crimes.

What they were all responding to was the force of Levitt’s underly- ing belief: that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not un- knowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more in- triguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. - Stephen J. Dubner.