Malcolm Gladwell Small Change Summary

In this Chapter Gladwell highlights how the common picture of success is achieved is not the one which many individuals think of when they consider the cause of success and shows this with evidence from very successful people. Gladwell employs logos in order to create a logical as well as the factual base for the story. This use is extremely obvious as almost the entire chapter is made up of example that supports his theory on the 10'000 hour rule. In order to concrete his argument, he uses Ethos by constantly employing well-known names in order to build a sense of credibility and citing people who have authority on the scene. He does a good job of using this for its desired purpose. Gladwell redirects his argument with phrases like "Let's

The question Gladwell asks seems so simple, but it gets the reader to pause and think. People can relate to it in many situations, so it is personal for each person. Gladwell also uses analogies to make his points come across. For example, when relating successful people to growing trees, “The tallest oak in the forest is the tallest not just because it grew from the hardiest acorn; it is the tallest also because no other trees blocked its sunlight, the soil around it was deep and rich, no rabbit chewed through its bark as a sapling, and no lumberjack cut it down before it matured. We all know that successful people come from hardy seeds.

Gladwell uses many rhetorical modes to prove his central claim, whether they be examples, comparing and contrasting two success stories, and etc, but out of all of them the one that Gladwell uses the most is process analysis. By using this mode Gladwell brings out the best points of his arguments over and over. In every chapter Gladwell uses this mode to break down the story in such as way that the reader understands how the central claim fits into that specific success story. The other modes are also well used but this one dominants over all of them as it is used to describe everything from the success of a hockey team to Gladwell’s own success, thus making process analysis the

An ineffective device used by Gladwell was his use of repetition of evidence and failure to acknowledge counterexamples by forcing the reader into thinking that Gladwell’s theory is the only one possible to be correct. The lack of acknowledgment towards counterexamples thrusts the audience into thinking that Gladwell’s opinion is the only viable one. “Philip Norman, who wrote the Beatles biography”, “nonstop show, hour after hour”, “Here is John Lennon”, and “playing all night long” are examples of repetition of evidence because the author already established that the

He uses a vigorous choice of wording and way to structure his sentences and paragraphs. Throughout his essay, he structures his paragraphs similar to keep a consistent and organized argument. He starts his first several paragraphs with an emphasis on one of his main points: content, intention, and conviction. He then goes on to explain how that point is important and provides examples. In his fourth paragraph, intention, he starts his paragraph by explaining intention with an unique style, the form of a question. Gladwell asks, “Was the remark intended to wound, or intended to perpetuate some social wrong?”. By using this style, it not only explains what intention means, but also implies it in the form of questions and examples. This leaves the reader wanting to know more and how Gladwell responds to his own questions. For example, after Gladwell asks the questions at the beginning of paragraph four followed by “I remember sitting in church, as a child, while our Presbyterian minister made jokes about how “cheap” Presbyterians were. If non-Presbyterians make that joke, it might be offensive”. Ending like this keeps the reader interested in what he has been through and how he is applying it to his argument. Overall, Gladwell’s use of style is necessary and a key within his essay. His style keeps his audience interested and wanting to know

He asks, “How are human beings connected? Do we all belong to separate worlds, operating simultaneously but autonomously, so that the links between any two people, anywhere in the world are few and distant? Or are we all bound up together in a grand, interlocking web? (Page 34)” Gladwell doesn’t actually expect readers to come up with an answer, but he does realize that readers wouldn’t consider these questions had he not put the questions in their heads to start with. By doing this he allows his audience to form their own opinions on the questions asked before he reveals what answers the questions were originally designed to expose. Gladwell effectively uses rhetorical questions to get the audience interested early on, therefore making the information given in the selection more important.

Not only does he uses the work of various other people to enhance his point, he adds multiple examples. He addresses the success of people such as Bill Gates and the Beatles and talks about how they became outliers while also using other examples to solidify his argument. While talking about Bill Gates and the Beatles, Gladwell emphasizes that they got the opportunity to get better, that “Practice isn’t the thing you do once you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good.” (42) Adding points such as that are what give him that

Although Gladwell's Outliers has been criticized for drawing generalizations from a "flimsy selection of colorful anecdotes and stories," and his argument borders "social predestination," according to the New York Times, Gladwell's conclusions do provoke a lot of thought and self-reflection. If you look at the reasons why you're a successful writer, you may find it was due more to circumstance, practice, and upbringing than any gift you were imbued with from

To begin it is understandable that Gladwell’s main topic in the book is too make the unlikely seem more likely, that the less popular beliefs

The author explains exactly what the professional asserts and how particular pieces of evidence relate to Gladwell’s unconventional idea of success.

His main argument of the article is regarding U.S News’ rankings of college institutions and the technique and algorithm they use to develop the rankings results. The problem at hand is how U.S. News weighs and values each category. For instance the reputation score counts for almost a quarter percent of a scools final grade. Gladwell goes on to say: “To go higher than forty-seventh, it needs a better reputation score, and to get a better reputation score it needs to be higher than forty-seventh. The U.S. News ratings are a self-fulfilling prophecy.”(7) He goes on to give an example of a survey that was sent out to lawyers, in which they would rank the top law schools in the nation. This was prior to Penn State having a law school; they ranked Penn State's law school roughly fifth. Gladwell demonstrates strong logos in both examples. How can we rank something based on reputation if use its pre-existing rank as it’s reputation. Ultimately, this leads to re-releasing the same rankings year and year again. Gladwell’s display of logic to argue against this specific ranking system is uncanny, especially as a student who used the U.S. News ranking system in determining which college institutions I would apply

selective pieces of Gladwell’s argument that takes things out of context and morphed it into a

To start with, Gladwell uses ethos, an appeal to ethics, as a device to effectively explain how

When it comes to schemes employed in the introduction of Gladwell's book, rhetorical questions take the cake. Upon countless instances, Gladwell used this rhetorical device to force the reader into staying engaged and seeing all sides of his argument. As mentioned earlier, the first subsection introduced an extensive story about the Getty museum's purchase of a forged Greek statue. In order to keep focused on the purpose of the novel Gladwell placed well-spaced out questions, asking the reader “ Who was right?” and “Why ... did the museum buy [the statue] in the first place?”, compelling one to pause and reevaluate how Gladwell’s notion, was in fact possible (Gladwell 7,14). To further excitement and engagement in his message, Gladwell prompts the reader with questions that poke at what the world could be like if humans put more trust in their instincts and “stopped scanning the horizon with our binoculars and began instead examining our own decision making and behavior through the most powerful of microscopes” (Gladwell 16). Open ended questions such as these give the reader a broader understanding of what Gladwell’s aspirations for the book were, allowing them to better comprehend his newfound ideas.

Gladwell carefully constructs his argument by offering the real life story of Bernie Goetz. Gladwell uses this example in order to provide a