Rhetorical Analysis Of Freakonomics

On the front cover of Freakonomics, the subheading reads, “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything,” which is the purpose of the book. The economist Steven Levitt and the author Stephen Dubner wrote this book using several rhetorical devices to achieve that purpose. A few of those devices, style, ethos, pathos, and logos, were prominent within the book and helped to convey the message and purpose well.

To begin, the authors’ style plays a major role in conveying their purpose. One of the first things anyone will notice is the title chapters, which are named by seemingly abstract and unrelated topics. For example, the first chapter is named, “What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?” This question makes the

reader do a double take after reading it because it seems as though the two groups have nothing in common. However, this is the first step into revealing the hidden side of things. By taking these supposed separate topics and finding something in common between the two, the authors help the reader understand that more things are related than they think, which is the main purpose and message. Another example of their style is the way things are written and spoken about. Freakonomics has the feel of a well educated book and the writing style proves that. In addition to sounding educated, the book feels relatable due to the topics; usually things most people are familiar with. All in all, Dubner and Levitt achieve their purpose by detailing things that seem ordinary in an effort to reveal their hidden side and give people a better understanding of the world around them.
Just as the writing style is relatable, an article at the beginning of the book helps the readers to understand Dubner and Levitt on an ethical scale.

Stephen Dubner wrote an article about Steven Levitt in which he describes who he is and what he does. This article characterizes Levitt in such a way that he seems just like a regular person, though we see him as an economic genius. The objective of this appeal was to make the reader relate to both Dubner and Levitt, and it does. People see Levitt as something of an expert, though Levitt is completely modest and says he is not that smart. His modesty shows that he doesn’t think of himself as better than anyone, which makes him more personable instead of just informative when he discusses topics in the book. Since Dubner thinks like we do and understands how we might feel toward Levitt, he makes himself more relatable just by writing the article. On top of that, both men started blogging in an effort to get more in touch with readers after the book was published in case there were mistakes or a further analysis was wanted. This proves that neither man was trying to be famous or to make a lot of money by putting out tons of books, but that they truly want to inform the public about the hidden side of everyday things such as schoolteachers and real-estate

agents.
Another relatable topic is names, and the authors spark a little emotion in this one. In the later chapters of the book, the authors discuss parenting and how naming children can affect their lives. For some, names influence every aspect of life, but for others, names play no major role. For instance, in one family, a son was named Winner and his younger brother was named Loser. The name Loser evokes sympathy and pity out of the reader because they can relate to the bullying he undoubtedly suffered. Though that is the case, it is later shown that the pity should be directed toward Winner since he hardly wins anything more than a trip to the police station thanks to his criminal activities. Loser, however, found a successful career in the New York police department. By showcasing that names do not necessarily determine how life will be, the authors reveal a bit about parenting and the actual importance of it.
In addition to pathos, the authors use logos to explain why some names do play a major role in life. As evidence, an example of two résumés was included to describe the impact names have in society. The résumés had the exact same information with the only difference being the name. One “sounded black” and the other “sounded white.” The latter was always chosen over the first. The conclusion of this data was that employers are either racist or names affect how people view others. People with “black sounding names” are expected to do worse in life than those with a “white sounding name.” Generally, those with “black sounding names” are from lower income families and poorer neighborhoods, so they aren’t given the opportunity to succeed as much as those who have “names meant to impress.” This generalization cannot be placed on every person, and fair chance should be given equally.
On the whole, Freakonomics used many rhetorical devices to convey the authors’ Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s message; however, they used rhetorical devices style, ethos, pathos, and logos a bit more than other devices like cliché, parallelism, and hyperbole. In final consideration, the message -- not everything is as it seems, so you must look at the hidden meaning -- and purpose -- to reveal the hidden side of things -- meant to be conveyed