Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, a well renowned economist, and Stephen J. Dubner, a New York Times journalist, is a 2005 nonfiction book that ties together economics and everyday life. The sixth chapter of this book, titled “Perfect Parenting Part II; or: Would a Rashonda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?” explores how parents play a role in their children’s success by giving them their names. Levitt wants to know how names differ among children whose parents are of varying economic and educational status and whether or not the names make a difference in those children’s lives. Ultimately, the authors fulfill their purpose in writing this chapter by coming to a clear conclusion supported by data and broadening the readers’ understanding of the effect, or lack thereof, that names have on personal outcomes; however, the use of rhetoric is limited, and the surplus of evidence hinders clear development of the argument.
The chapter starts off explaining how parents wish to make some sort of difference in their children’s lives and that deciding on a name might be the first way of doing so. The authors provide an intriguing example of how a man from New York City decided to name his sixth child (a boy) Winner because he had a special feeling about him, and, out of humor, he named his seventh (also a boy) Loser. One would think the boy named Winner would have to have a successful life, whereas the boy called Loser couldn’t possibly accomplish much. However, Winner grew up to be a criminal, and Loser a college graduate and eventually a sergeant in the NYPD. With this example, the authors demonstrate the fact that names don’t actually determine people’s success. In the main body of the chapter, the authors use extensive evidence to further prove their point. They provide lists of popular baby names among boys and girls in white families and black families and popular baby names among high-income families and low-income families. They also show how popular names have changed over the years, using samples from the 1960s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s in order to answer the question of where names even come from. The evidence provided helps them come to the conclusion that the names parents give their kids hardly make any difference, no matter what the name is attempting to convey, but the names are a reflection of their economic background -- not a cause of their future success. The author uses the logos aspect of rhetoric throughout the chapter to support his claims, asks many questions to involve the reader, and uses storytelling to interest the reader. Levitt proposes very thought-provoking questions throughout this chapter that are likely to interest the reader: do our names contribute to our success in life? Do high-end- and smart-sounding names make us more likely to become intelligent and/or wealthy? Do low-end- or black-sounding names put us at a disadvantage? Parents like to think that they are making some kind of difference by giving their children certain names, and the purpose of this chapter is to find out if they truly are. It is compelling and surprising to see Levitt reach the answers. The idea/purpose behind the chapter is the strongest aspect of the excerpt. By exploring this idea, Levitt addresses the possibility that people with black-sounding names may have a disadvantage against people with white-sounding names, but finds that the name doesn’t create a disadvantage because it “sounds black” but because it sounds like the name of someone from a low-income, low-education upbringing. An audit study explained, “a researcher would send two identical (and fake) résumés, one with a traditionally white name and the other with an immigrant or minority-sounding name, to potential employers. The “white” résumés have always gleaned more job …show more content…
The evidence he uses is easy to read and understand but difficult to remember and recall as there is so much. His examples, on the other hand, were very effective and entertaining. The reliance on logos makes it hard for the reader to easily follow the development of his argument. Had he been more diverse in his use of rhetoric and spaced out his evidence better, the chapter would have been more powerful, but it still accomplishes its purpose, has a clear result, and offers insight to the
The chapter starts off explaining how parents wish to make some sort of difference in their children’s lives and that deciding on a name might be the first way of doing so. The authors provide an intriguing example of how a man from New York City decided to name his sixth child (a boy) Winner because he had a special feeling about him, and, out of humor, he named his seventh (also a boy) Loser. One would think the boy named Winner would have to have a successful life, whereas the boy called Loser couldn’t possibly accomplish much. However, Winner grew up to be a criminal, and Loser a college graduate and eventually a sergeant in the NYPD. With this example, the authors demonstrate the fact that names don’t actually determine people’s success. In the main body of the chapter, the authors use extensive evidence to further prove their point. They provide lists of popular baby names among boys and girls in white families and black families and popular baby names among high-income families and low-income families. They also show how popular names have changed over the years, using samples from the 1960s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s in order to answer the question of where names even come from. The evidence provided helps them come to the conclusion that the names parents give their kids hardly make any difference, no matter what the name is attempting to convey, but the names are a reflection of their economic background -- not a cause of their future success. The author uses the logos aspect of rhetoric throughout the chapter to support his claims, asks many questions to involve the reader, and uses storytelling to interest the reader. Levitt proposes very thought-provoking questions throughout this chapter that are likely to interest the reader: do our names contribute to our success in life? Do high-end- and smart-sounding names make us more likely to become intelligent and/or wealthy? Do low-end- or black-sounding names put us at a disadvantage? Parents like to think that they are making some kind of difference by giving their children certain names, and the purpose of this chapter is to find out if they truly are. It is compelling and surprising to see Levitt reach the answers. The idea/purpose behind the chapter is the strongest aspect of the excerpt. By exploring this idea, Levitt addresses the possibility that people with black-sounding names may have a disadvantage against people with white-sounding names, but finds that the name doesn’t create a disadvantage because it “sounds black” but because it sounds like the name of someone from a low-income, low-education upbringing. An audit study explained, “a researcher would send two identical (and fake) résumés, one with a traditionally white name and the other with an immigrant or minority-sounding name, to potential employers. The “white” résumés have always gleaned more job …show more content…
The evidence he uses is easy to read and understand but difficult to remember and recall as there is so much. His examples, on the other hand, were very effective and entertaining. The reliance on logos makes it hard for the reader to easily follow the development of his argument. Had he been more diverse in his use of rhetoric and spaced out his evidence better, the chapter would have been more powerful, but it still accomplishes its purpose, has a clear result, and offers insight to the