Young Generation: Unwilling or Just Hindered “The Dumbest Generation” by Sharon Begley and “Meet the Twixters” by Lev Grossman both tackle “issues” of the young generation. “The dumbest Generation” deals with the decline in intellect. Begley claims that the young generation’s ignorance does not equate to stupidity, and therefore, it is incorrect to label them as dumb. On the other hand, “Meet the twixters” deals with the decline of the number of young people moving on into adulthood. It claims that young adults are consciously delaying their moving into adulthood not because they are lazy or do not want to assume responsibility, but because there are justifiable factors that hinder them from such transition. While both essays make excellent …show more content…
use of different rhetorical devices, “Meet the Twixters” is more rhetorically effective because the author utilizes techniques that connects to a different variety of readers. He draws them in to identify with his point of view in the argument. Also, there seems to be a strong emphasis in which Grossman places on his claim, which in the end gives his essay as a whole more persuasive power than the Begley’s essay. To support their claim, both Grossman and Begley present part of their evidences through the use of Logos.
With the quote, “first, the IQ scores in every country, including the United States, have been rising since the 1930’s,” Begley appeals to the logical side of the audience. By doing so, he makes the audience reason that if numbers and statistics adhere to his claim, then that means that they can believe his argument. More importantly, today’s society associate IQ with intelligence. Therefore, that particular statement convinces the audience that the young …show more content…
generation is getting more intelligent since the IQ scores have been rising. Evidence in “Meet the Twixters” states that “the percentage of 26-year-olds living with their parents has nearly doubled since 1970, from 11% to 20%,” and that “in a TIME poll of people ages 18 to 29, only 32% of those who attended college left school by age 21 and recent college graduates owe 85% more in student loans than their counterparts.” It also stated that “annual earnings among men 25 to 34 with full time jobs dropped 17% from 1971 to 2002, according to the Generational Center for Education Statistics.” In order to be an adult, one needs to be independent, and have financial stability. The statistic studies provided shows a decline of the things needed to become an adult. Through these statistical evidences, the reader can hence understand why the young adults are delaying their transition into adulthood. It isn’t because they do not want to; it’s just that unfavorable circumstances are inhibiting them. Contrasting both essays, “The Dumbest Generation” had multiple mentions of facts and statistical studies. However, only a few directly supported the argument of the essay. Most of the facts supported the opposing team, and what the author did was disprove those facts. Examples of such facts are that “two thirds of high-school seniors in 2006 couldn't explain an old photo of a sign over a theater door reading COLORED ENTRANCE, and in 2001, 52 percent identified Germany, Japan or Italy, not the Soviet Union, as America's World War II ally.” Another stated fact is that “rom evidence such as a decline in adult literacy (40 percent of high-school grads had it in 1992; only 31 percent did in 2003).” These facts alone pose as a contradiction to the claim in “The Dumbest Generation”. This decreases the effectiveness of the Begley’s attempt to disprove those facts. Grossman, on the other hand, provides facts that directly and strongly supports his argument. In this case, “Meet the Twixters” gets the upper hand because in an argument, proving ones claim is much stronger and convincing than disproving the opposing claim. Begley and Grossman both establish their credibility in order to amplify the persuasiveness of their argument. There is a reference to respected figures such as “Gen Y,” “Ken Kosik of the University of California Santa Barbara” and “cognitive scientist, Marcel Just from Carnegie Mellon University” in “The Dumbest Generation” that contributes to establishing the Begley’s credibility. Carnegie Mellon is a well-known school that can be placed on the same scale as the ivy leagues. When people usually hear of schools of such caliber, the common thing that comes to mind is that the people that attend there are extreme geniuses, and that they must have extensive knowledge of whatever they are studying there. Thus, citing a study from a scientist of that school as evidence persuades the audience to believe the Begley. This is because in a sense, his claim is being supported by a very intelligent figure. Basically, if the studies or statement of respected and intelligent figures support that the young generation is not dumb, then it is reasonable to believe that the young generation is not dumb. Grossman mentions a book from “Jeffrey Arnett, a developmental psychologist at the University of Maryland.” Again, there is a reference to a person who has earned a degree in psychology, so obviously, he must know what he is talking about. Grossman also mentions “Steve Hamilton of Cornell University's Youth and Work Program,” and gives a quote where he stated that his “classmates who didn't want to go to college could go to the Goodyear plant and buy a house and support a wife and family," however, “that doesn't happen anymore, [and] instead, high school grads are more likely to end up in retail jobs with low pay and minimal benefits, if any” Yes, Begley references respected and top tier people, but that’s just it. Grossman goes further than that. He does more than just cite studies. He provides personal quotes that validates its claim. Being able to cite such distinguished people, and in addition, being able to reveal that some have experienced what the author is trying to prove, pushes the reader to hold an attitude where they believe that Grossman has the right basis to make the argument. Although both establishes credibility in a sort of similar ways, the ethos established in “Meet the Twixters” extends a step ahead of “The Dumbest Generation”. At the end of the “The Dumbest Generation”, Begley’s statement, “well, choices can change, with maturity, with different reward structures, with changes in the world their elders make. Writing off any generation before it is 30 is what’s dumb,” arouses an emotion of guilt. This is directed towards the audience who opposes his claim. They would feel wrong for calling the young generation dumb as they would realize that they were quick to judge and didn't give the young generation the chance to mature and actually prove their capability. The pathos is fully accomplished when it leaves the opposing reader pondering, “Was it wise to label the young generation as dumb when we don’t even fully know their competence?” “Meet the Twixters” does an effective job appealing to the reader’s emotion. It brings in the life stories of several people like Kate Galantha, a “28 [year old who] spent seven years working her way through college,” Matt Swann, a “27 [year old who] took 6-1/2 years to graduate from the University of Georgia,” and Marcus Jones, a “28 [year old] comedian who works at Banana Republic.” The reason why “Meet the Twixters” is more effective in the use of pathos is because the evoked emotion in that essay is stronger than that of “The Dumbest Generation”. When the reader reads these life stories, they experience the feeling of sympathy or in some cases empathy. Various readers can identify because they have either gone through similar experiences or they know of people who have. This creates a connection between Grossman and the reader. While feeling sympathetic, the reader becomes vulnerable, and Grossman makes sure to take advantage of this vulnerability. As a result, the reader is drawn in and thereby easily persuaded. Due to such, there is a level of understanding that the reader of “Meet the Twixters” receive that the reader of “The Dumbest Generation” do not. In general, “Meet the Twixters” has an upper hand over “The Dumbest Generation” because the anecdotes included brings Grossman and the reader on a personal basis where he can make his argument and convince the reader of it. All in all, both essays make excellent use of different rhetorical techniques and devices.
However, in analyzing the three rhetorical techniques, “Meet the Twixters” always seems to perform a more solid job in effectively developing logos, ethos, and pathos in the argument than “The Dumbest Generation” does. This may be because in “Meet the Twixters”, it comes across that Grossman is spending more time proving his claim whereas in “The Dumbest Generation”, it feels as if the main focus Begley is to disprove the opposing claim, thereby always saying why the other claim is incorrect. I believe that perhaps this causes Grossman to have more focus on making his claim persuasive. On the other hand, Begley is too attentive on not making the opposing argument persuasive that his own claim suffers at the expense of that. Another reason “Meet the Twixters” is more rhetorically effective is because being memorable aids in the effectiveness of ones argument. In comparing “Meet the twixters” and “The Dumbest Generation”, “Meet the Twixters” is more memorable, and therefore becomes more effective. The reader may have an idea of what both essays are about. However, what tips the scale is the collection of diverse personal experiences included in “Meet the Twixters”. This sets it apart from “The Dumbest
Generation.”
Throughout his preface of the book titled Why We Can’t Wait, which entails the unfair social conditions of faultless African Americans, Martin Luther King employs a sympathetic allegory, knowledge of the kids, and a change in tone to prevail the imposed injustice that is deeply rooted in the society—one founded on an “all men are created equal” basis—and to evoke America to take action.
In the book Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer wrote about Christopher McCandless, a nature lover in search for independence, in a mysterious and hopeful experience. Even though Krakauer tells us McCandless was going to die from the beginning, he still gave him a chance for survival. As a reader I wanted McCandless to survive. In Into the Wild, Krakauer gave McCandless a unique perspective. He was a smart and unique person that wanted to be completely free from society. Krakauer included comments from people that said McCandless was crazy, and his death was his own mistake. However, Krakauer is able to make him seem like a brave person. The connections between other hikers and himself helped in the explanation of McCandless’s rational actions. Krakauer is able to make McCandless look like a normal person, but unique from this generation. In order for Krakauer to make Christopher McCandless not look like a crazy person, but a special person, I will analyze the persuading style that Krakauer used in Into the Wild that made us believe McCandless was a regular young adult.
The Letter from Birmingham Jail was written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in April of 1963. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of several civil rights activists who were arrested in Birmingham Alabama, after protesting against racial injustices in Alabama. Dr. King wrote this letter in response to a statement titled A Call for Unity, which was published on Good Friday by eight of his fellow clergymen from Alabama. Dr. King uses his letter to eloquently refute the article. In the letter dr. king uses many vivid logos, ethos, and pathos to get his point across. Dr. King writes things in his letter that if any other person even dared to write the people would consider them crazy.
The YouTube video “U.S. Armed Forces – We Must Fight – President Reagan” by Matthew Worth was made with the intention to motivate the viewers to support the U.S. Armed Forces. The purpose of this Rhetorical Analysis is to determine whether or not the video has been successful in doing just that, motivating and drawing support for the United States Armed Forces. The video was uploaded to YouTube on February 19, 2012 and has nearly 4 million views. Matthew uses the famous speech “A Time for Choosing” by the United States former President, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who has a reputation for his patriotism, to complement the video. This video has been effective in motivating the viewers because of its strong use of the rhetorical concepts logos, ethos, and pathos.
The article I have chosen for my rhetorical analysis is #Gamergate Trolls Aren’t Ethics Crusaders; They’re a hate group because it seemed interesting. The reason I was drawn to this article was because of the title, I was interested to know what it meant. This article, written by Jennifer Allaway, is about gamergate, an online gaming community, and the hate they show towards others. Jennifer does research on sexism in videogames and how it correlates to the gamers that play these games. She was collecting data from different organizations by using a questionnaire that gathered information on diversity in the videogame community. When some gamergate members
...est high school students in America” (Gladwell 82). It was shocking to learn that all the Nobel Prize in Medicine winners did not all come from the most prestigious schools. Also, in the third chapter I notices some aspects that were highly relatable to me. My life relates to subjects included in chapter three because I am a student. It is interesting and helpful to learn that one does not need the highest IQ to succeed in today’s world. This is how I relate to chapter three. The third chapter in Outlier by Malcolm Gladwell had striking information that stated that IQs do not always determine who will be successful, and I can relate to the information in the chapter because I am student who has thought about my IQ before.
Pollan’s article provides a solid base to the conversation, defining what to do in order to eat healthy. Holding this concept of eating healthy, Joe Pinsker in “Why So Many Rich Kids Come to Enjoy the Taste of Healthier Foods” enters into the conversation and questions the connection of difference in families’ income and how healthy children eat (129-132). He argues that how much families earn largely affect how healthy children eat — income is one of the most important factors preventing people from eating healthy (129-132). In his article, Pinsker utilizes a study done by Caitlin Daniel to illustrate that level of income does affect children’s diet (130). In Daniel’s research, among 75 Boston-area parents, those rich families value children’s healthy diet more than food wasted when children refused to accept those healthier but
In his article, “None of the Above: What IQ Doesn’t Tell You about Race” journalist Malcolm Gladwell refutes the notion that intelligence is based on genetics and argues that IQ is not just based on an individual’s level of thinking but also on the location where an individual resides. In 1984, James Flynn discovered that over the years, the IQ of people around the world had been increasing by three points per decade. This is now known as the Flynn effect. The IQ fundamentalists around the world believe that IQ score shows an individual’s level of thinking and it is based on genetics. However, Flynn effect disproves this
Analyzing the codes used in the University of Arizonas Natural Science On-line Class Attendance Policy, a genre emerges disparaging the traditional view that knowledge is sharpened through the exchange of ideas. To make the class more appealing to non-traditional students the University has designed an attendance policy which does not eliminate traditional forms of interaction, but instead devalues them subversively thus discounting their necessity. Connotations within the policy divert the unsuspecting student into a particular learning mode. This mode, unappreciative of the insights a typical class would normally culture, does not encourage the student to be "present" mentally, an imperative aspect of becoming educated in a cyber class. Therefore by establishing the existence of these de-prioritizing codes, and the extent to which they must inevitably shape the interpretation of the text, we can clarify the level of interaction the policy genuinely intends. We see then the probability of students relating to the individualistic tone of the policy and discounting the requirements to attend to and with others.
In a quote by John Mill, “Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.” Everyone’s life is precious, but at what price? Is it okay to let a murderer to do as they please? Reader, please take a moment and reflect on this issue. The issue will always be a conflict of beliefs and moral standards. The topic
In a persuasive essay, rhetorical appeals are a very important tool to influence the audience toward the author’s perspective. The three rhetorical appeals, which were first developed by Aristotle, are pathos, logos, and ethos. Pathos appeals to the emotions of the audience, logos appeals to the facts or evidence and ethos exhibits the credibility of the writer.
The movie trailer “Rio 2”, shows a great deal of pathos, ethos, and logos. These rhetorical appeals are hidden throughout the movie trailer; however, they can be recognized if paying attention to the details and montage of the video. I am attracted to this type of movies due to the positive life messages and the innocent, but funny personifications from the characters; therefore, the following rhetorical analysis will give a brief explanation of the scenes, point out the characteristics of persuasive appeals and how people can be easily persuaded by using this technique, and my own interpretation of the message presented in the trailer.
Arnett may not be inaccurate as he explains the differences in young adults today as previous generations based on the timing roles take place, nonetheless suggesting it as a novel universal stage causes concern globally. As mentioned in Cote’s 2014, Dangerous Myth of Emerged Adulthood, Arnett’s theory cannot be correct for all 18-29 year olds, nor did Arnett explore other countries across different demographics or non-college students, (L. Drew, Emerging Adulthood lecture, August 26th, 2015). Young adults appear to bounce around the workforce, however it could be because young adults are accepting employment they are not favorable of to aid them through college where at that point they can inevitably find the career they intend on keeping, opposed to Arnett’s reasoning for this to be “identity explorations,” (Cote, 2014, pp. 184). Arnett’s theory may be plausible for a selection of people in industrialized societies where their behavior can be seen as prolonging their “adulthood”. For example, young adults not feeling like an adult and who search for self-exploration, on the other hand perhaps he should consider a innovative term other than a developmental stage in life universally, (Arnett, 2000, pp. 479).
Jonathan Kozol revealed the early period’s situation of education in American schools in his article Savage Inequalities. It seems like during that period, the inequality existed everywhere and no one had the ability to change it; however, Kozol tried his best to turn around this situation and keep track of all he saw. In the article, he used rhetorical strategies effectively to describe what he saw in that situation, such as pathos, logos and ethos.
Gardner’s theory of MI offers an alternative view of intelligence which has measured intelligence based on the results that would predict success in the current educational system. Furham (2009) sums up Gardner’s definition as “the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued within one or more cultural settings”. This definition suggests that human intelligence is comprised of more than the predictable success in a western school system. Gardner argues that traditional definitions of intelligence and intelligence testing are too narrow and marginalize people who do not fit traditional education system that focuses on visual–spatial, verbal–linguistic, and logical–mathematical intelligences. He supports this with unique cases of idiots savant, who are people with low IQs but excel in skills in areas not measured through tradition IQ tests (Arnett, 2013). MI theory proposes that individual’s intelligence can be differentiated on eight different modalities: