McWilliams 1
Molly McWilliams
AP English Language and Composition
Mr. Lane
5.9.11
Independent Reading: Researched Argument
Freakonomics: Researched Argument
Section I: Introduction and Context
Economics: a field of study applied to almost every facet of life. You may hear
economics discussed on the nightly news; you may read about the failing economy in the
newspaper. Although the study of economics is frequently used and referenced, one
question remains that mystifies many: what exactly is the study of economics? As told
by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner in their groundbreaking novel, Freakonomics:
a Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, economics is essentially the
study of incentives. Regarding this type of economical thinking, Dubner states, “Many
people—including a fair number of his peers—might not recognize Levitt’s work as
economics at all. But he has merely distilled the so-called dismal science to its most
primal aim: explaining how people get what they want” (Levitt & Dubner, xxv). This
unconventional way of exploring economics is driven by questions that one may not
normally ask yet which affect our every day lives. For example, how is the Ku Klux
Klan like a group of real-estate agents? Using multiple rhetorical strategies,
Freakonomics provides answers to questions that had previously gone unanswered by
utilizing the study of incentives, otherwise known as economics.
Section II: The Author’s Background
McWilliams 2
Stephen J. Dubner, the co-author of Freakonomics, is a highly recognized and
well established author and journalist. He has written numerous books, the most
recognizable being Turbulent Souls, which was awarded the title of Notable Book.
Dubner is a graduate of Appalachian State University and received an M.F.A. in writing
at the prestigious Columbia University where he continued to teach in the English
department. Building upon his experience, Dubner held a career as an editor and writer
for the well-known New York Times Magazine. While working for the New York Times,
Dubner was assigned to interview and write a profile on the popular, upcoming
economist, Steven D. Levitt. This first introduction led to collaboration focused on
studying and writing about economics. As a result, Freakonomics was born.
Steven D. Levitt is a reputable economist often celebrated for his unorthodox
approach to economics. As the Alan H. Baum Professor of Economics at the University
of Chicago, Levitt received his B.A. from Harvard University and then continued in his
education to receive a Ph.D. from M.I.T. Levitt has received multiple awards regarding
his work with economics including the John Bates Clark Medal which is awarded to the
“most influential economist in America under the age of 40” (Steven). Working together
to combine their different areas of expertise, Dubner and Levitt composed an intriguing
novel persuading their audience that economics is, without a doubt, the study of
incentives.
Section III: The Book’s Argument
Although each chapter of Freakonomics focuses on a different topic, the
commonality throughout the entirety of the novel is the underlying message that
economics is essentially the study of incentives. The authors even acknowledge that
McWilliams 3
there is in fact no “unifying theme” within the pages of Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner,
209). There is, however, “a common thread running through the everyday application of
Freakonomics” (Levitt & Dubner, 209). This “common thread” is referring to the
authors’ primary message previously mentioned: economics is the study of incentives.
This message moves through the novel as the authors discuss each new subject, such as
the real motives of real-estate agents and the various commonly used yet unrealistic
explanations of crime reduction.
Levitt and Dubner strongly appeal to logos in order to persuade their readers of
their argument that economics is the study of incentives. This is done by displaying
various charts and graphs and revealing statistical evidence. The authors’ utilization of
logos via charts is painfully apparent in “Chapter 6: Perfect Parenting, Part II; or: Would
a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?” In this chapter, the authors discuss
the incentive behind which names are chosen for a parents’ newborn baby. For certain
social groups, such as African Americans and well-educated people, the incentive for
choosing a particular name is representation of ethnicity and/or placement on the
socioeconomic ladder. Charts titled “The Twenty ‘Blackest’ Girl Names,” “The Twenty
‘Blackest’ Boy Names,” “The Twenty White Boy Names That Best Signify HighEducation Parents,” and “The Twenty White Girl Names That Best Signify HighEducation Parents” are all strategically used to support this claim (Levitt & Dubner, 187200). Visuals, like the charts mentioned above, are commonly used to support the
argument made within the pages of Freakonomics. Statistical evidence is also very
prevalent.
McWilliams 4
Chapter four’s main focus is the incentives behind abortion and the indirect
outcomes of these incentives. The authors state that “the very factors that drove millions
of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had
they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives” (Levitt & Dubner,
139). As a result, “legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to
high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime” (Levitt & Dubner, 140). In
support of this argument, statistics are given stating that “violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell thirteen percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and
1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of other states” (Levitt &
Dubner, 141). This is a clear demonstration of statistical evidence used to appeal to logos
in order to support the argument made by the authors.
The rhetorical strategy of pathos also has a strong presence as Levitt and Dubner
formulate their argument that economics is the study of incentives. This is noticed as the
text touches upon the incentives of choosing to become a crack dealer on the streets of
Chicago .Many may frown upon this lifestyle choice; through pathos, the authors
persuade the reader to sympathize and acknowledge the economics of this decision.
Levitt and Dubner state that “an editorial assistant earning $22,00 at a Manhattan
publishing house, an unpaid high-school quarterback, and a teenage crack dealer earning
$3.30 an hour are all playing the same game, a game that is best viewed as a tournament.
The rules of the tournament are straight forward. You must start at the bottom to have a
shot” (Levitt & Dubner, 104). Everyone is fighting for a chance at success; for some,
becoming a crack dealer is their best shot. As similarities are established between the
audience and crack dealers, the audience sympathizes with the crack dealers unfortunate
McWilliams 5
situation. By creating a feeling of sympathy amongst the readers through an argument
built upon pathos, the audience understands the incentives, or economics if you will,
behind engaging in such an illegal and dangerous career.
Along with strongly appealing to logos and pathos, the authors build upon their
argument by taking advantage of the exemplification rhetorical strategy. Exemplification
is the strategy of supporting an argument with specific cases or instances. This is most
prevalent as the authors are discussing the commonality between school teachers and
sumo wrestlers: both groups have strong incentives to cheat. Teachers are given the
choice to correct students’ incorrect answers on standardized tests with the incentive of
being “praised, promoted and even richer” (Levitt & Dubner, 24). Similarly, sumo
wrestlers are given the choice to pay-off their competitors in hopes of becoming a topranked sumo wrestler that “is treated like royalty” (Levitt & Dubner, 38). The authors
closely study these incentives. By introducing the school teacher’s and sumo wrestler’s
specific case, the reader is more convinced that the authors’ argument is correct.
Levitt and Dubner are very successful in providing enough information
and evidence to persuade the reader of their argument. However, the mistake of creating
an argument post hoc ergo propter hoc is detected in various sections of the text. This is
prevalent as the authors attempt to make the argument that the legalization of abortion is
the cause of the reduction in crime during the 1990’s. It is essentially stated that the
crime rate declined as abortion was made a legal. Therefore, abortion must have been the
cause of the crime rate reduction. The authors jump to this conclusion without
considering any other possible explanations. The presence of logical fallacies, such as
McWilliams 6
the post hoc ergo propter hoc mentioned above, weakens the argument of Levitt and
Dubner.
Section IV: Opposing Points of View
Although authors Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt strongly feel that the
study of economics is simply the study of incentives, not all agree. Others argue that
economics is the study of making choice. As Saint Michael’s College stated, “economics
how we make choices…” (What is Economics?) rather than, contrary to what Dubner and
Levitt believe, what motivates people to actually choose which decision to make.
Examining the choices our society must make on a daily basis, such as whether to build
more hospitals or highways, is a “way of understanding how to make best use of
understanding how to make best use of natural resources, machinery, and people’s work”
(What is Economics?). This, as argued by the source in opposition of Levitt and
Dubner’s opinion, is the essence of economics. Unlike the argument in Freakonomics,
the argument that economics is in fact the study of choices does not utilize any rhetorical
strategies and therefore creates a very weak persuasion.
Section V: Conclusion
As argued by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt in their 211 page novel,
Freakonomics, economics is the study of incentives. This argument is strengthened by
the utilization of rhetorical strategies such as logos, pathos, and exemplification.
Although the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter is present, I believe that the evidence
supporting the authors’ argument strongly overpowers this minuscule flaw in persuasion.
Along with rhetorical strategies, Levitt and Dubner strongly relied on entertainment to
persuade the audience. I was intrigued by the interesting topics throughout
McWilliams 7
Freakonomics and felt compelled to continue my reading and delve even further into the
authors’ argument. After completing Freakonomics, I am entirely in agreement that
economics is the study of incentives. This strongly persuasive argument left me feeling
as if that is the only logical explanation as to what economics actually is. Did
Freakonomics enable me to finally the economic light of understanding? Maybe.
Works Cited
DiNardo, John. "A Review of Freakonomics." No Apparent Motive. N.p., 10 Dec. 2005.
Web. 6 May 2011.
<www.noapparentmotive.org/papers/DiNardo_on_Freakonomics.pdf>.
Hando, Geoffrey. "Book Review: Freakonomics by Levitt, Steven D. & Dubner, Stephen
J." Journal of Economic and Social Policy. Southern Cross University, 1 Jan.
2007. Web. 6 May 2011.
<epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=jesp&seiredir=1#search="freakonomics+review">.
Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: a rogue economist explores the
hidden side of everything. New York: William Morrow, 2005. Print.
"Stephen J. Dubner: About the Author: HarperCollins Publishers." HarperCollins
Publishers — World Leading Book Publisher. HarperCollins Publishers, n.d.
Web. 6 May 2011.
<http://www.harpercollins.com/author/microsite/About.aspx?authorid=16311>.
"Steven D. Levitt: About the Author: HarperCollins Publishers."
HarperCollins
McWilliams 8
Publishers — World Leading Book Publisher. HarperCollins Publishers, n.d.
Web. 6 May 2011.
<http://www.harpercollins.com/author/microsite/About.aspx?authorid=27846>.
“What is Economics?.” redirect. Saint Michael’s College, n.d. Web. 6 May 2011.
<http://academics.smcvt.edu/economics/Whatis.html>.