Rhetorical Devices In Steven Levitt's Freakonomics

Drug dealers still bunk with their mothers due to the fact that they uphold subpar jobs. The reason for this is proven in the third chapter of Freakonomics. The

"Spin" chapter rhetorical devices The chapter "Spin" is really cool to read because Tim O'Brien uses flashbacks in the chaptg and goes from one arecdote to the present to amther anecdote, and the stuies don't seem to connect, but he follows his modem train of thought and tells stories wherever the train takes him. O'Brien also uses ethos as a former soldier, and creates pathos through his stories. The most prominent and interesting rhetorical device he uses is verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is when fiction seems realistic, as if the events had actually happened.

Moneyball, the story of a dynamic change agent who rallied a small group of undervalued professional baseball players and executives to overturn convention and rethink how Major League Baseball (“MLB”) was managed and played. Its really a book about hustlers. Moneyball consecrated the notion that its noble to win inexpensively, but believe its good to stay a cheap baseball club, because of their fat annual revenue-sharing check they get at the end of the year. Michael Lewis wrote an un-organizational confusion, his misunderstanding of baseball, to his constant interruption of financial and statistical talk, that turned interest in the book away from many.

He parallels his diction with the subject of gun control by addressing both liberals and conservatives in his article. He does this not only because he wants to address a variety of different people who might be affected by this problem, but also because the problem does not affect one area. It affects the whole United States, like it affects all people. Kristof uses this parallelism to emphasize how far gun control reaches, and how nobody is doing anything beneficial. He includes that “All these gun permits [granted] cause neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected).” Kristof proves both groups of people wrong at the beginning of his article to emphasize how the problem is greater than just them, and to describe how neither group is doing anything beneficial. Another strategy Kristof strategically employs is his appeal to logic. Kristof incorporates multiple statistic accounts to inform the reader, and persuade them that there has been no change in what the government has been participating in. “[M]ore Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million).” This example causes the reader to ponder about the reality of the situation and decide if the situation is logical. The studies that Kristof references, and all the data he incorporates into his article, causes the reader to want to believe him because it appears that he researched the topic, and obtained reliable sources, such as Daniel W. Webster, a gun safety specialist. In addition to his use of appeals, Kristof also includes his prominent rhetorical questions. The rhetorical questions allow the reader to contemplate what they would do if they had a chance to solve the problem. One question that pertains to this is, “So why does nothing get done?”

Kristoff uses many rhetorical devices to make points in his piece, “Our Blind Spot About Guns”. He compares the safety of guns to cars and tries to make a point that we should regulate them in the same way. One rhetorical device Kristoff used is visual persuasion. By showing a picture of a sign stating that guns were prohibited in Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, he used this visual to show the reader that gun prohibition has already been established throughout history. Visual persuasion is often used to convince the reader that the statements that are being forth are superior to the opposing side. It shows visual proof and is intended to make a point and persuade the reader to agree with the statement. Another rhetorical device that was used in the piece was a paradox. The author used this device when he said, “It’s pointless because even if you regulate cars, then people will just run each other down with bicycles,” (“Our Blind Spot About Guns” pg. 161) This statement is

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

Taya Kyle, the author of the article “American Sniper Widow: Gun Control Won’t Protect Us”, believes that there are two sides of the argument on gun control. People can use statistics, facts, and real life examples to argue that there should be stricter control of guns in the US, but they cannot eliminate the emotional side of the story. While in the last two decades, violent crime rates have actually been reduced in the US, fears have gone up. Anyone can be a victim of a violent crime because if another person decides to do harm, they will do it under any circumstances.

Guns under the control of the government are able to show who is buying the guns and is able to tax the guns. Gun control is the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. I chose to do the moral issue of gun control because I am for limited gun control. In this paper, I will argue whether gun control is necessary for the United States or does the government have the right to ban guns from the citizens.

For this review I read Freakonomics written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. This book was published by William Morrow an Imprint of HarperCollins and is copyrighted 2005. Freakonomics is a unique book where there is no central story. It is not a story where it goes from point a to point b and follows a traditional storyline. This book is broken up into a collection of mini stories where the authors try explore issues and approach them from a non-conventional way of thinking. Some of these issues in the book include comparing Ku Klux Klan members to real estate agents, why drug dealers live with their moms, and linking abortion to criminal rates. The book addresses the issues at hand and uses data they have accrued and in their

However, Levitt, in the introduction of Freakonomics, declares economics to be a simple “science of measurement” depicting reality compared to and distinct from morality considered as ideals or utopias of that reality. In my opinion this statement underestimates the significance of economic theory in today’s world, is generalised and insufficient. Economic theory and measurements have strong implications, e.g. for the perception of national welfare, and consequently policies and regulations of a country which attributes to economics much more command than a mere supply of information. Furthermore, reality can hardly be described only by numbers since feelings and morality as foundations of our values and beliefs take a large and decisive part in life and our decisions, but can hardly be measured as such. Even the economic system of exchange is not only based on efficiency and quantitative terms but indeed on moral-based conduct as well. Overall, I consider explaining the world by mere measurements and a collection of factual data too simplistic.

Robinson emphasizes some her argument on employing logical persuasion to counteract her shortcomings in credibility. It’s frequent that events in history can repeat themselves, and understanding the implications of past actions helps to prevent future mistakes. Fear is an emotion that is, in our society today, unavoidable. Yet, this is precisely what creates an atmosphere of political or social unrest within the nation and abroad. Because, it serves as a tool by which ideas can be spread or perhaps forced down upon those easily convinced. She cites guns as being a prime example of this case, saying: “gun sales stimulate gun sales,” and “when people see weapons, they have every reason on earth to fear the worst” (4 Robinson). Fear is better described as being ‘contagious’. As the threat of violence, for example, increases, the perceived need for violence in retaliation increases. The logical response

Joanne Lipman, being a former college student had an extremely harsh orchestra teacher. Jerry Kupchynsky being considered a cruel teacher towards Joanne and Joanne’s classmates. According to Lipman, Mr. K would make his students “...rehearse until our fingers almost bled.” Joanne most likely was not used to Mr . K's uncompromising orders and the way he taught his class considering he came from another country he was raised differently. Joanne had gone to Yale University, meaning she received high education and seemed to be financially stable as she includes many of her former students have been quite successful in the fields they have been functioning in.

Analyzing communication messages through late-night shows varies. Mixing humor with specific news stories provides an interesting message, depending on the audience. Last Week Tonight With John Oliver uses specific news segments and analyzes it through the use of extensive research and humor. This includes his segment on the New York Yankees, where he makes it very clear which position he is taking on the issue. This segment dives into the elitist practices of the Yankees organization, which include not allowing fans to print out tickets at home and opening the elite Legends Club with expensive premium seats. Through the use of effective theories and

The New York Times is a daily newspaper, that is published in New York City, since 1851. The newspaper has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, and is the second largest in circulation. On November 11, 2015, The New York Times posted an editorial called “A Criminal Record and a Fair Shot at a Job.” Many places when you apply for a position ask if you have ever been convicted of a crime. In 19 states and 100 cities this is forbidden until after the applicants have proven their qualifications. Last week, President Obama ordered federal agencies to stop questioning people about previous arrests and convictions at the beginning of the application process. The editorial argued that the President shouldn’t stop there and that he should spread the executive order to

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.