Chunk Three of Freakonomics

In chunk three of Freakonomics (chapter 5 and 6) , Stevin Levitt and Stephen Dubner attack two major issues: "what makes a perfect parent" and "would Roshanda by any other name sound as sweet"?. With their abstract and unbiased approach, the duo confront their first questions with a series of factors that effect a child's success through parental involvement and economical stance. Levitt concludes that parental involvement, like participation in the PTA; English as a primary language spoken at home, a maternal age over thirty(when the child was born), highly educated parents are all positive factors that correlate to high standardized test scores. In Chapther 6, the authors extend the discussion of parenting with an overview of more economic aspects of parental choices. Primarily focusing upon the parents labeling of their children, Dubner and Levitt refer to previous research and conclude that a low income name, like De Shawn, has a lower chance of obtaining a job than someone named Jake (even with the same credentials). Levitt states that the employers interpret the socioeconomic correlation between name and stance, believing that a "white" name is an indicator of a less problematic, and more diligent worker. Finally, the book ends with a brief reminder that their are limits to the ability to predict every outcome, through an economic analysis, with the success of Roland G. Fryer, an African American, whom was raised in an impoverished, unstable family environment but "made it out" and became a well-renowned Harvard economist.

Tone: Practical, straight forward

Rhetorical Terms:

• Logical appeal: when proving that their rational is most practical after disproving all other conjectures.
• Allusion: to historical context, like Julius Caesar "alia iacta est"/the die is cast
• Statistics: making the authors argument more persuasive due to its credibility(the chart on education vs. names)

Questions:

• If you had a child would you rather allow them to participate in a play- date with a friend whom had a gun in their household or a pool in their backyard? Even after Levitt and Dubner stated that their was a higher chance of death by drowning.
• Why do employers consider the value, or weight a name if he/she has excellent credentials?
  

Chunk 2 of Freakonomics

Chunk two (chapter 3 and 4) of Frekonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner asks why drug dealers still live with their mom's and where have all the criminals gone. Like previously, Levitt and Dubner encounter these problems with an economists perspective of analyzing the problems many solutions and sources at a fast-paced tone with the use of moderately sophisticated language. To solve why drug dealers still live with their moms Levitt and Dubner offer a detailed glimpse into the economics of a drug-dealing street gang; through the eyes of Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist. When Venkatesh remarkabley receives a copy of all the financial records kept by the gang he shares it with Levitt. With extensive analysis of the data, Levitt debunks the common perspective that all crack dealers are wealthy and live lavish lives. He refutes this common misconception, by informing the general public that only the few top of the food chain make money while the actual 'foot soldiers'(drug dealers) make less than half of the minimum wage. Levitt states the like the college football player who lifts weights to better his chances of playing in the NFL, people who become crack-dealers have the same ambition to climb the latter to more pay. In chapter four Levitt concludes that the 1973 legalization of abortion is the source of the rapid decline in the crime rate. Recognizing the volatility of this argument, Levitt and Dubner approach the problem from numerous perspectives, methodically proving that their is no correlation between each of the solutions to the surprising crime drop. For instance, in detailed analysis, they demonstrate that factors such as improved policing strategies, stricter gun control, new prisons, an aging population, and a number of other possible explanations simply do not relate to the dramatic violent crime drop because they either don't occur chronologically or with disproving crime data. Hence forward, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner show how "..conventional wisdom is often found to be a web of fabrication, self interest,and convenience.." and how some solutions should not be overlooked because the abstract answer may be the right answer after sorting out the facts from the fiction.

Tone: not too formal, straight-forward, persuasive

Rhetorical devices:

1. Allusion: when describing how cocaine impacted the American population harsher than the Jim Crow laws, to amplify the severity of the problem.
2. Statistics: making Levitt's argument more credible and believable. For instance, when he included data of how the crime rate decreased when abortions increased.
3. Logical appeal: when disproving all popular solutions with counter arguments and credible data to prove that their(Levitt and Dubner) solution is correct.

Questions:

• Do you think the legalization of abortion was the source of the dramatic drop in crime?.
• Why does present culture depict drug-dealing as a well-respected and wealthy career in the media, when there is a one in four chance of death, and the pay is half of minimum wage?

Chunk 1 of Frekonomics (Incentives and Information)

Freakonomics, authored by the collaboration of Stephen J. Dubner, writer for the New Yorker and New York times, and Steven D. Levitt, an economics teacher in the University of Chicago, refute the common misinterpretation of today's economic issues with a more 'below the surface' analysis of the conundumn. Levit and Dubner urges the general public to use an econmists perspective when confronting problems. With simple,vulgar language Levitt and Dubner address some of the most intriguing issues with a series of economic based questions. For instance, in chapter one, the authors define the jist of economics as the study of incentives by asking what sumo wrestlers and school techers have in common. Levitt does this by describing how incentives are a "means of urging people to do more of a good thing than a bad thing", with reaserch on the rigging of high stake stanardized tests,conducted by teachers for more pay; sumo wrestling in Japan, with the 'qiud pro quo' deal. In both circumstances an incentive drives one to cheat in order to gain money. Another topic addressed in the first chunk was how the Ku Klux Klan is like a group of real-estate agents. The pupose trying to be conveyed, in this case, was how ..."nothing is more powerful than information, especially when its power is abused". Levit and Dubner apostrophized this purpose by describing how the exploitation of information single-handedly crippled the white-supremacist KKK and can prevent one from commiting a bad deal when puchasing or selling propety by serarching the 'blue book' value of the property online first, before consulting with a corrupt real estate agent. In both circumstances, the KKK and the real estate agent manipulate their victim because of their prey's ignorance. Stevin Levitt and Stephen Dubner attack intriguing issues with an economists prespective, showing how economics is not merely the dry, uninteresting study of financial trends and maket economy, but can be used as a tool to deal with everyday problems.

Tone: formal, persuasive,informative
Rhetorical strategies:

1. statistics-making an argument more credable
2. logical tone- when dicussing how the most practical awnser is not always the best awnser to the source of some problems.
3. humor/comparison- when relating two completly different fields with each other(sumo wrestlers and teachers)

Questions:

• Why don't the people educate themselves from ignorant feeding predators(i.e. corrupt real estate agents)?
• If the KKK's group has multiplied rapidly over the years then why is there a decrese in lynchings?

Mom? Dad? I'm home by Gustavo Arellano

Analysis
Gustavo Arellano's December 2007 Los Angeles Times opinionated article, "Mom?Dad?I'm home" (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-housingcrowd28dec28,0,2958732.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions), informs the audience of the problem of the "housing crunch" the U.S. faces with overcrowded cities and scarce space to construct new housing. Gustavo proposes that more people should live in more compact households containing a generation under one roof. By doing so, Arellano states that people will show more"...appreciation for open space and public gathering spots surge. Save your money as you watch housing prices fall. Watch neighborhoods transform into vibrant communities...". So not only will housing prices decrease due to the shortage of homes but communities will become more family oriented. Gustavo exemplifies his solution by using the stereotype of full Latino households. "...among many Latinos, whether packing five families into a one-bedroom apartment or children who don't leave the casa until marrying at 35...". Extending the time one spends in a household will open the door to cheaper prices and will increase the availability of new homes, which increases space to prevent over crowded cities.

Tone: informative

Would you, personally, live with your family until you are 35 to decrease crowded cities and lower prices of homes?
If this is such an easy solution to the 'housing crunch" why hasn't it been proposed?passed?

Skinny Santas?

Analysis
In a December 2007 satirical piece posted on the l.A.Times opinion section(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-santas24dec24,0,6003216.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials), an unknown author addresses that Santa Claus's, the symbol of Christmas, physical appearance conveys a bad message to the general publics health. Santa is a "...apple-shaped advertisement for type two diabetes and heart disease." The anonymous author describes how Britain believes that "jolly old St. Nick" is responsible for obesity and that new fitness programs and more slim Santa's are being imputed into malls, when Britain is just following the U.S.'s high obesity percentile. "...by 2050 more than half of Britain's population will be obese...".Another argument for the change of Santa's appearance is that it doesn't follow a more historical look of the original Clause who lived in Turkey. So instead of a fat man, due to the consumption of billions of cookies, coming down a chimney, some argue that Santa should promote a more healthy lifestyle with a more lean look. The article's humorous approach pokes fun at Britain's solution of slimming Santa to reduce obesity.

Tone: humorous/satirical

Do you think Britain used Santa as an escape goat for their obesity conundrums?
If Santa's image impacted people enough to consume more food then wouldn't a slim Santa send messages of anorexia because of the rapid weight loss?

The Benazir I Knew by Amy Wilentz

Analysis:

Amy Wilentz's 2007 opinionated editorial(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilentz28dec28,0,4296745.story?coll=la-opinion-center), written in commemoration of her former classmate, Benazir Bhutto, describes Benazir's great strive for a more democratic and peaceful Pakistan. Amy starts off by describing Bhutto's accomplishment of becoming the first female Pakistani leader and her significance in the stability and well being in Pakistan's health by stating that "Benazir's hideous murder has made the situation even more obscure...". Amy also addresses how much Benazir cared about her country by taking the risk to appear in Rawalpandi, when knowing that she was a target for many assasins, "...when the time comes that i have to die, ill die". Benazir's 'impossible" death meant that Pakistans fate was again vague without Bhutto's guidance. Benazir's death"...meant a new era for Pakistan.But a new era is not always the better one".

Tone: reminiscent/mournful


Do you think a a more democratic Pakistan is more probable without Benazirs presence ?


If Benezir was such a high target for terrorists why wasn't there more security at her speech in Rawalpandi?Why would she have a speech in Rawalpandi if she knew there was a high chance that she would be targeted there?If you were in her situation would you have done the same and take the risk?

APEnglishLanguage

this blog was created for only academic purposes...