3rd Chunk of "Freakonomics"

Analysis

In chapter 5 Dubnar and Levitt address childrearing and the challenge it places in parents who driven by the fear phenomenon of death. As they ask the question,"Which is more dangerous: a gun or a swimming pool?", Dubnar and Levitt, maintain the emphasis on the lack of knowledge, induces the execution of inappropriate decisions. Parents tend to supposedly make the "best" decisions for their children, when in reality, they lean towards their affection of death, with no consideration of the hazardous environment they place their children. Dubnar and Levitt make a excellent analogy, when they insinuate that a parent would rather let her daughter play with her daughter's friend who's parent owns a pool, that her other friend who's parent owns a gun. When in reality, there is an increase in probability, that her daughter will die in a pool (1 in 1000) than being shot to death (1 in 1 million). In chapter 6, Dubnar and Levitt, encompass the parents job in naming their children. Either by giving them trendy, classical, bazaar or simple names, they attempt to dictate and embed, the lifelong success of their children. Dubnar and Levitt, simply devise on the economic principles of incentives, and nature of humans to be emotionally en coursed to decide and make choices.

Diction: Alarming, humorous

Style: Direct and Explicit

Rhetorical Devices:

1. Diction: Use of language, especially on the use of names. When describing the names, he uses colloquial and more unstandardized academic words. However, when reasoning, he elevates his word choice, making his argument more credible.
2. Appeal to Logic: Dubnar and Levitt utilize statistics to reinforce their arguments; 1 out of 1000 chances of dieing. By also utilizing reasoning, they adhere to the audience sense of understanding.
3. Tone: Dubnar and Levitt shift their tone as they humorously make the argument about names and success.
4. Pacing: Dubnar and Levitt structure their sentences in long, devised length, unless they satirically mock an issue.



Questions:

If the choice of selecting a name might affect the success of children, what would a last name or even a second last name do in effect? It is much harder to change your last names?

Is a swimming less frightening than a gun?

How would typical racial names, alter the social life of another race, or group of people with a different racial name?

Chunk Two of Freakonomics

Dubnar and Levitt further utilize the concept of incentives to introduce a even more veridical economic principle, associated with the availability of jobs. In chapter 3 of the second chunk of Freakonomics; Drug Dealers Living with Their Moms, the mediocre pay of a drug dealer, is almost incomparable to the average minimum wage. However, the mere idea of gaining honor, respect and at least the possibility of rising to a higher employment position , was enough to compensate for the lack of sufficient pay. In a study made by Sudhir Venkatesh, in a impoverished black Chicago community, research was conducted to understand why drug dealers lived with their mothers, when it appears that they can afford a mansion. Although, as may be lie, the highest position held the average hour wage of $66 dollars per hour. Under his status, the next top rank position of treasurer, distributer and security earned $7 dollars an hour. The ranks below, including foot soldiers, went as low as #3.30 an hour; ignoring the changes of being killed, arrested or injured. Yet, most of these people were driven by the ambition of reaching the height of becoming a a crack gang leader, in a extremely competitive environment of more than 500 people. In chapter 4, Levitt and Dubner address the decrease in crime due to the increase of abortion rates in the United States. A study was made, were the abortion rates in the late 1960's were compared with prior years. As states legalized abortion,due to the no desire to concede a child under rape, incest or simply because of health complications, suddenly led wave of abortion in the U.S. By 1980, 1.6 million abortions were executed that day. Levitt and Dubnar argued that this casualty only secured a more crime-less generation. Furthermore, the abortion study, expanded on the idea of incentive, and expanded it to the social scope of benefit and conviction, while it still maintained association with micro economics.

TONE Serious, Critical

RHETORICAL TERMS

Diction: Other than simplifying economic principles in a simple and conversational context, Dubner and Levitt include phrases that add credibility to the research made on an African-American Chicago community. The use of "to try and jacking up the drug's potency", and "Fuck you, nigger, what are you doing in our stairwell?", makes his argument more believable and possibly even attention grabbing.

Appeal to Logos: Dubnar's and Levitt's inclusion of statistical information doesn't fail them again as they incorporate them to clarify their claim about the average wage of a drug dealer and the abortion rates of the U.S. in the 1980's compared to the 1960's.

¿Preguntas?
-Would the selling of different drugs, have different results?

-What if Hispanics were research in L.A., for the MJ business?

-Is there a common variable in all thematically revolving issues?
For example, for the drug dealers study, is there something that will not change, if different factors were applied.( other than the incentive to get a more elevated position in the business)