FREAKONOMICS chunk three

In today's society, education is a nessecity on the road to success. To obtain a quality education, it is necessary for one to have responsible and caring parents. But how much effect does a parent have on the outcome of one's success? It is not what the parents do for the children, but what they are? It turns out that parents who have a higher education tend to have smarter children that the parents who go the extra mile to read to their kids every night and so forth. All the extra help such as the HeadStart Program can only do so much, the outcome of a child's life is more dependant on the resume of the parents. Contradictory to emperical ideas, the amount of television viewed by the child or the amount of video games played by the child hardly affects the success of a child.
The name of a child doesn't determine his/her success, rather, their names are an indicator of their socioeconomic status which influences their life. Certain opportunities and resources are only available to the more fortunate and economically stable of families. These are the factors that determine the life one is to have. Names are but indicators of socioeconomic status. The wealthy tend to have more uncommon names because they make them up while the names of the monetarily challenged are those that have been hackneyed by the rich. Although parents name their children with names that "sound" successful, they won't succeed unless the parents have set an example for them to follow. Again, Dubner and Levitt have tackled a facet of economics (which no one else has questioned) to contradict an empirical hypothesis and state the actual reason.

Rhetorical Terms:
Statistics: stats on names from various years
Appeal to Logic:the whole book

What do you think are some names that are common for high and low socioeconomic families?
How do names "sound" successful? What are some?
Do you think one's socioeconomic status dictates their success? Why or why not?

FREAKONOMICS chunck 2

Why do drug dealers live with their moms? By analyzing the studies of Sudhir Venkatesh, a PhD student at the University of Chicago, Levitt and Dubner have exposed the inner workings of the drug markets and discovered why drug dealers still live with their mothers. What started with a life or death encounter with a gang of drug dealers turned out to be an experience that has provided a wealth of information pertaining to the hierarchy of drug dealers and its similarity to the hierarchies of some of the most succesful corporations ever founded. Venkatesh's research has shown that only the executives of the drug industry, much like the executives of a major corporation rake in large incomes. While the executives earn around $200,000 a year, the foot soldiers (who do the actual dealing) earn less than half of the minimum wage (around $3.30 an hour). This explains why drug dealers still live with their moms. Not only do the foot soldiers earn less than half of minimum wage, their working conditions are the worst in the world- they risk being arrested, shot at by crackheads and/or rival gangs, etc. There is a 25% that a drug dealer will get killed while on the job. How can people still hold drug dealers in high esteem when they still live with their mothers, earn less than half of the minimum wage, and have a 25% chance of getting killed?
In this chunk, Levitt and Dubner also tackle the sudden decrease in crime rates in the 1990s. Again, Levitt's unconventional methods yield unexpected answers that are nonetheless highly plausible. The steep drop of crime rates in the 1990s have raised many questions about how and why they dropped. Although all fingers point to laws pertaining to the stricter law enforcement and harsher punishments, Levitt has proven that the real reason behind it was the legalization of abortion. Most criminals originate from households with single or negligent parents who either don't have the time to care or just don't care. These parents don't provide the necessary care for their children and therefore, their childern inevitably deviate from a correct the correct path and are bred into criminals. However, Levitt has reasoned that because these potential criminals were never born, their imminent crimes were never committed. The preventing of the births of potential criminals is the main reason that crime rates have dropped. Again, the unconventional thinking of Levitt and Dubner have provided unforeseen answers to everyday questions.

Tone: technical and sincere

Rhetorical Terms:
1. Appeal to Logos: this whole book appeals to logic, no matter how unconventional it may be. With assumably accurate facts and statistics, Levitt and Dubner validate their arguments.
2. Statistics: their specific numbers pertaining to the drug industry and drop in crime rates adds credibility to the argument.

Questions:
1. Do the beneficial effects of the legalization of abortions outweigh the moral discrepancies of abortion itself?
2. Why do drug dealers still deal drugs even with all of its drawbacks?