AP Assignment Part #4

Précis #1 Freakonomics

The authors of this non-fiction book are Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. This book, Freakonomics, was first published on April 25th, 2005 (my version was however published in 2009). This book basically looks at issues that seem to have not to do with economics and brings them together, showing that the study of economics is the study of incentives. This book explains why teachers and sumo wrestlers would cheat in their own very respectable positions. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner imply throughout their book that there are many hidden sides or viewpoints for every single thing. 

The authors seem to use a lot of ethos and logos to prove their points, while pathos slightly exists throughout the book it acts as a support for the other two rhetorical devices. When they are explaining how a drug dealing gang is similar to a fast food chain, it seems preposterous that a violent and dangerous gang could be a lot like a harmless restaurant. However by explaining how those two unfamiliar groups are the same, the idea seems to become clearer. But they then introduce Sudhir Venkatesh, a twenty year old graduate who later ends up following a drug gang to collect data on how they operated. After a period of five to six years, Venkatesh meet Levitt and showed him the data he had collected, including the gang's financial records. After studying the data it was found that the gang, the Black Disciples, had an organizational chart similar to one McDonald's would have. The authors later show some charts that the Black Disciples had, therefore providing credibility for their claims as well as providing solid data to support themselves. There is another claim that these two authors have which is that real estate agents do not at all have the customers well being at their interest. They first start off by saying that anyone can turn any amount of information into manipulative fear. They give some examples such as that there is a fear that a cheap casket will make someone's already dead grandmother suffer a horrible fate. Or that a $25,000 car will crumple in an accident, but a $50,000 car will easily wrap loved ones in a cocoon of steel. The real estate agents them prey up the two fears that home sellers have: that the house will either be sold for a really low price, of the house will not be sold at all. Feeding on that fear, real estate agents will actually attempt to sell a customer's house for a low price, while selling their own house for a much higher price. A study has shown that on average a real estate agent will keep their house on the market for an extra ten days and sell it for three percent more than their customer's house. When reading this, it sounds foolish that a real estate agent would actually do that, however the authors use effective reasoning to explain their point. If a real estate was to sell their house for an extra three percent of a $300,000 house the agent would sell their house for an extra $10,000. But if an agent was to attempt to sell a $300,000 house for an extra $10,000, they would only make around $150 extra, which is not a great reward for all the extra work it takes to sell a house for an extra $10,000 dollars. The usage of logos to explain and reason why this would happen is effectively explained, but logos isn't the only rhetoric device used, a example of pathos is used. One of the author's friends by the name of K wanted to buy a house that was $469,000, and was ready to offer $450,000 for the house. However before that K called the seller's real estate agent and after a while K had bought the house for $430,000. The real estate agent in fact made his client lose $20,000, while he himself didn't loss much and probably would make a lot more money back by selling his own house.  

It seems as if the purpose of writing this book is to give the average person a whole new look at the world as well as to give insight of how economics work. This can be supported by the fact that it was mentioned in a question and answer past of the book. But seriously the authors take various topics that the normal or even most people won't consider such as comparing the dangerous Ku Klux Klan to supposedly harmless real estate agents. Or how a simple decision to allow for abortion in Texas virtually eliminated most of the 1990s criminals. Basically the authors want the readers or the audience to not jump on the bandwagon and assume the reason for something for happening is reason A (the most likely), not reason Z (the least likely but correct option). Also by selecting out of the norm topics, the authors are able to gain the reader's interest , while explain the economics side of the topic in a way that is easy to understand and still uses the principles of economics.

The authors seem to believe that their audience are regular average people with little to no experience in economics. Dubner and Levitt do not try to present themselves as a highly educated and knowledgeable people. They attempt to speak as they are one of the audience, this can shown by the usage of the second person highly through out the book. Usually the usage of second person point-of-view can be linked as a sign of an incompetent writer. However in this case, it actually very productive and useful. Even though all of the audience knows that Dubner and Levitt are well educated and famous writers, it felt like they have stooped down to an ordinary person's point of view to better explain their topics/ideas.

Précis #2 Guns, Germs, and Steel

The author of this book is Jared Diamond and the full name of the book is Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. It was published in 1997 and is a trans-disciplinary, persuasive nonfiction book. This book talks about how the West (aka Western Europe and North America) was able to rise and become one of the world's most powerful and wealthiest countries, although they were at a huge disadvantage thousands of years ago. And why the big, rich, and powerful areas of the world of the past are now some of the poorest regions of the world. Mr. Diamond attributes this to three different reasons: Guns, Germs, and Steel, hence the name of the title. Each of these three reasons are later explained in how they have affected the fate of the world, and the balance of power. Although guns, gunpowder, and cannons were invented by the Chinese and spread to Europe through the Ottoman Empire's usage. It was the European nations that most efficiently used them. The European nations were at constant warfare with one another and needed guns, while the Asian and Middle Eastern nations didn't needed them as much. This allowed for the Europeans to improve upon the guns and make them better, while overpowering the originals. Eurasian had a bunch of agriculture and domestic animals. The animals caused for the spread of diseases and infections to people, and over the span of a couple of centuries the European people became immune or developed antibodies against those diseases. The European conquers had spread those diseases to the Native Americans when they discovered the Americas, and since the natives had no immunity to the European diseases, they were annihilated. Jared Diamond posits that it was these the things that allowed for the rise of Europe over the rest of the world.

Jared Diamond uses logos very effectively to prove his points. He uses tables, charts, graphs, maps multiple times throughout the book to point out what regions of the world had certain types of plants, when they had domesticated various animals, and etc. This allows for an easier way to see and understand what the author is trying to say, and makes it a lot easier to sympathize and reason with Mr. Diamond. Jared Diamond uses pathos many times as well throughout the book to improve his credibility or his ethos. In the very beginning of the book Diamond talks about how his friend Yali was the motivation of this book and how he would attempt to answer his question. Not to mention his includes his experiences in those regions of the world whether it be Africa, Eurasia, Australia, or etc. He talks about an instance in Australia when he and his wife were hiking in one of the deserts and barely made it to the rest station where they were feed and watered.
He later uses this point to talk about the Aboriginal people who live in the desert and how they were advanced enough to survive in the desert and live there for millenniums. Also included are instances when he personally interacts with the native people such as when he and his group are questioning local native women about their husbands and way of life.  

Jared Diamond hopes that the people will be realize that the dominant places on the Earth were not always powerful, and that in fact the so called weak and poor regions of the world were actually the strongest and richest. He wants us to realize that every place on the Earth is unique and should be laughed or mocked at. He wants us to he informed on how Europe was able to become very powerful because of a few chancy circumstances. Basically the entire purpose of this writing was to just explain how the powerful nations or hegemonic nations came to be, when compared to the rest of world.

Jared Diamond thinks of the audience as regular people, maybe with some historical background knowledge. His uses the first person point of view, so that brings the reader in to and allows them to reach with him. He constantly uses the person person plural form such as the word "we". This allows him to involve his previous experiences with the audience, and allows for Diamond to himself interact with the audience. This allows for the audience to feel like they themselves are involved in the book and are more likely to pay attention to Jared Diamond's words. 

AP Assignment Part #3

The First Article

The article is about how European countries were able to easily conquer most of the world, it states that Europeans were masters of modern warfare. Although other places like Asia and the Ottoman Empire had gotten gunpowder and cannons before Europe, Europeans were able to master them proficiently. Mr. Hoffman attributes this to the fact that European powers were always at war with each other, causing military competition to make advancements in weaponry to advance and overtake others. 

This article correlates nicely with my book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. The article talks about how Europeans, although at a disadvantage compared to others, managed to overcome that weakness and become powerful. Jared Diamond is on the exact same roll (although he does not only talk about weapons but in other cases as well) as Philip Hoffman, that the Underdogs of the World (Europe) were able to end up controlling most of the world.

The article use logos and ethos very effectively, the first instance is that the author is a professor at California Institute of Technology. This automatically makes the readers believe that author is well known, respected, and knowledgeable. He uses facts very effectively and truly to prove his point. He uses the dates that are true to show that he speaks the truth. This in the end makes it so that people are more likely to believe what he is saying.

If I was to join a conversation between Philip Hoffman and Jared Diamond, I would have to agree with them again. I too have taken World History and I have been sometimes astounded by how a lot of civilizations were conquered by a group of people that were inferior to them. Both of them manage to carefully explain how Europe was able to end up controlling most of the world, even with a major disadvantage.

Hoffman, Philip T. "Why was it that Europe conquered the rest of the world? The politics and economics of Europe’s comparative advantage in violence" Yale, (Date Published Unknown), Web. 21 July 2014

The Second Article

The article is about the impact agriculture had on early civilizations. The author goes into detail on how agriculture had allowed for an influx of food to be produced which later paved the way for permanent settlements. With permanent civilizations and an influx of food, this lead to specialization of labor. And the specialization of labor ends up creating cities and empires.

This article correlates nicely with my book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. The article is about how agriculture in the Middle East and the latitude near the Middle East had created and innovated societies, tools, and civilizations. This is pretty close to what Jared Diamond is saying, due to agriculture, cities were able to form and technology was able to become more advanced.

The article seems to only use logos throughout its life. There are no hints that may hint the usage of ethos or pathos. Only logos is used but it is used very often, for example the author tells what crop was domesticated where and at what time period. He also talks about the technologies that were invented thanks to agriculture, and how agriculture slowly created bigger settlements.

I were to be suddenly thrown into a conversion between Terrie Schultz and Jared Diamond, I would once again have to be on their side. It is simple, both of what they are arguing has been proven true multiple times, and their thinking makes sense. Both of their reasonings seem logical when thought about and it also corresponds to what I've been taught in multiple history classes, so it would be unwise to disagree. 

Schultz, Terrie "Two Effects of the Development of Agriculture on Early Societies" Brighthub, 31 October 2010, Web. 21 July 2014 

The Third Article

This article is about the colonization of Africa by European countries. It explains reasons on why European countries had attempted to conquer Africa. These reasons include that colonization would lead to more land, which meant more wealth and power, and served as a way to export unwanted people (who were unable assimilate into new city life as a result of industrialization). It talks about how Europeans had easily conquered Africa with their supreme technology and weaponry, so even if the native Africans had fought back or resisted, they were easily overthrown. 

This article correlates nicely with my book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. The article talks about how Europeans were able easily able to conquer Africa with more supreme and advanced weapons and technology. This idea is also mentioned in my book and in fact is one of the main ideas- that advanced weapons were one of the biggest ways Europeans were able to conquer most of the world. 

It seems that the article concentrated upon the rhetoric elements of ethos and logos just like my book, and pathos is generally ignored or only slightly used. The article manages to use ethos since it was published by a website which is being researched by the Schomburg-Mellon Humanities Summer Institution and the New York Public Library. Since these two organizations are well known and respected, the reader is more likelier to believe what the article is saying. Real facts and events which have happened are also used a lot throughout the article. For example real events such as the fall of the African Slave trade and the Berlin Conference are referenced, showing that what the article is saying is true and not some random items that are being pulled out of thin air.     

If I had to partake in a conversion with Jared Diamond and Ehiedu E. G. Iweriebor, I would most likely take their side or position on this topic. Both of the authors are on the same idea here- that the Europeans were able to conquer places due to advanced weaponry (for Diamond it is the world, while Iweriebor is specifically concentrating on Africa). I would be on the same side as them as what they are both trying to say has happened and is true, it would be foolish to try and say that their opinions are wrong as I would saying that the truth is false. 

Iweriebor, Ehiedu E. G. "The Colonization of Africa" Africana Age, (Date Published Unknown), Web. 21 July 2014 

AP Assignment Part #2

There are three different aspects of the rhetoric triangle: ethos, pathos, and logos. Each and everyone of the aspects have their unique usages and purposes in the art of persuasion.

Ethos (Greek for "character") is the credibility or the ethnic appeal of the author. A simpler definition would be that the author uses his character or authority to persuade or convince the audience that his ideas are worth listening to or pay attention to. In other words people are more likely to listen to or pay closer attention to those that they feel are knowledge upon the subject at hand. An effective way to use ethos would be to establish the author's creditably or authority. A way to establish ethos could be use education or labor position to prove that one is creditable.

Trust me, I am Albert Einstein.
I know a lot about the subject at hand.

For example if a person is doing a speech on the best treatment for cancer, they could say "I've been treating cancer patients for over 20 years and know all about how different treatments effect people." This quote shows that the speaker has some knowledge about the current topic, and the audience is more likely to believe or be persuaded by the speaker's words. Another example could be that a student could tell another one of their peers how to solve an algebraic problem, however the student who needs help is more likely to go to their teacher or parents for help because to them their teacher or parents are more reliable due to their age and experience. So even if what the friend and the teacher say is the exact same, the student is more likely to believe the teacher even more.

Pathos (Greek for "suffering" or "experience") is often known as the emotional appeal of the author. Basically the author or speaker invokes the audience's emotions, since many people's emotions can effect their judgement and perception. Another way to effectively use pathos would be to use the author or speaker's personal experience with the topic. If used correctly the personal experience or anecdote can do two things: it can cause the emotions to trust or move towards the speaker and at the same time establish ethos by showing the speaker or author is experienced or knows about the subject at hand.

Look at all the starving kids in Africa

If a chairman or spokesperson of a charity is giving a presentation about why people should donate to them, he could use pathos to influence their decisions. He could show them a picture of famine children, all scrawny to the bone. This would arouse the emotion of pity in the audience, then the audience would donate money to the charity due to their emotion (pity) getting to them. This could also make them feel more self-confident or proud that they have donated $5 to a charity, which are also emotions.

Logos (Greek for "word") is the logical appeal or persuasion using reasoning or solid data. No matter how creditable the person is or how the audience feels about the topic, persuasion will always be difficult with any actual real data to back it up. That is one of the reasons logos has been considered the most important part of the rhethoric triangle. One can be lacking in the ethos and pathos department, but by having solid statistics, facts, and data, one could counteract that. The statistics do not lie, so even if people do not like the opinion there will not be any chance to deny the speaker since the facts will support their point.

If a spokesperson for a cell phone company like Samsung was presenting their brand new phone model, he could use data they collected on the average battery size of their competitors to show that on average the Samsung phone has better battery life then other phones. Then no one could disprove him because they ran tests and have actual legit evidence that their phone has superior battery life.

In Freakonomics the authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner use ethos effectively. The first instance of ethos usage is the fact that both of the authors are well known. Steven Levitt had attended Harvard University for his BA, and later received a PhD from Massachusetts Instuite of Technology.
He has also won John Bates Clark Medal in 2003 (for the best economist under 40)  and was in Time Magazine's "100 People Who Shape Our World"in 2006. He is currently the William B. Ogden Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and the director of the BeckerCenter on Chicago Price Theory at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. And in 2009 co-founded the TGG Group, a business and philanthropy consulting company. As for Stephen Dubner had received a Master of Fine Arts in Writing from Columbia University. And since all of this is stated the reader automatically starts to believe what the authors say even more.

Another usage of ethos would be when Levitt and Dubner use the word "Right?" at the end of sentences multiple times. The effect this has, is that the reader tries to not disagree with such well known and intelligent writers. This makes the reader less sure of themselves and more believing of the two authors.

Pathos exists in Freakonomics but is rarely used as often as the other rhetorical devices. In the first chapter Levitt and Dubner explain reasons why teachers and sumo wrestlers would cheat on tests and matches. Normally both of these professions are well respected and honored and it would seem as if they wouldn't do something that dirty. But by talking about these when and why cheating in both professions occur, the audience feels disgusted and is persuaded even more. 

A secondary usage of pathos could be when the authors are talking about how swimming pools are deadlier than a gun. At first it seems stupid that a regular pool would kill more children that a dangerous gun. But after the authors explain their reasoning a certain fear of how a common seemingly harmless object could be a deadly killer.

The final rhetorical device is logos which is used a lot through this book. The first example would be when they present statistics and facts about the rate of crime and the rate of abortion. The numbers greatly show and prove the theory that legalizing abortion helped lower crime in the 1990s.

The last example of logos is with swimming pools once again. Data is used to persuade and show that pools kill this many children a year when compares to. Guns. And there are this many pools and guns in the United States. This also shows the ratio of children deaths from these two common items, showing actual proof that their viewpoint is correct.

It seems that the rhetorical device of pathos is the least used in Freakonomics. In most of the chapters or topics Levitt and Dubner always try to establish their credibility so that the audience will believe them as credible. And the usage of logos is pretty common as through out most of the book, as both of the authors use lots of graphs and data charts throughout the book to prove that what they say is actually happening.