Gray 1
Rachel Gray
Professor Alicia Bolton
English 101
17 October 2013
Arguments on Intellectualism: Having Street Smarts and Overlooking Academics
Have you ever thought about what actually makes an argument effective? Logos,
pathos, ethos, and fallacies are often used in argumentative essays. Rhetorical appeal (logos,
pathos, and ethos) are often necessary in having a successful argumentative essay. Logos is
something with a logical meaning. Similar to logos, ethos appeals to readers' trust by convincing
them that the writer is creditable and trustworthy. On the other hand, pathos tends to appeal
to readers emotions. These must be used rationally in academic essays or a reader may feel
manipulated. A fallacy, something that should not be found in a successful argumentative
essay, is faulty reasoning which often occurs when a rhetorical appeal is misused. These
fallacies tend to ruin an authors creditability because they are basically wrong information.
Both essays that will be discussed talk about intellectualism. One essay specifically talks about
being able to be educated not just by academics but by street smarts. The other essay talks
about how sports get more recognition than important things such as academics. “AntiIntellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids” by Grant Penrod is a better essay than “Hidden
Intellectualism” by Gerald Graff, because its arguments have more convincing reasons and
evidence, has a better use of logos, and contains pathos.
To start off with, both essays have arguments, but “Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate
the Smart Kids” has better evidence and more convincing reasons. Both make fairly good
Gray 2
arguments, but "Hidden Intellectualism" is the least effective. The argument in “Hidden
Intellectualism” is not quite as strong as the argument in “Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate
the Smart Kids” because it does not have enough reasoning and proof. In Graff's essay, he
argues that many teachers do not take full advantage of some students potential. Just because
students have street smarts does not mean they will not succeed in school, and intellectualism
can be present in street smarts. According to him, intellectualism is not only present in
someone’s academic level of skill, but can be found in anything. He gives personal experience
which provides a good argument, but not as well as Penrod does in his essay. Graff says that
something as simple as playing sports helped him gain his intellectualism and become smart.
His personal experience only proves that he, himself believes it because he is the one that went
through it. Unlike Graff, in his essay, Penrod explains why it is said that people hate nerds. He
uses a specific high school to show why this is true, because special recognition is given to
sports teams like football for doing good, but none is given to teams having to do with
academics even if they get the same accomplishments. Instead of just giving personal
experience, Penrod uses an entire high school as an example. He helps people to realize that
sports have started to become more important than academics. From reading this essay, one
may see that people tend to look down on nerds and praise athletics. Penrod's ideas make
perfect sense and are easier to agree with than the arguments of Graff.
Second, logos are used in both essays, helping to make them argumentative essays. In
“Hidden Intellectualism,” logos is used when Graff says:
Students do need to read models of intellectually challenging writing – and Orwell is a
great one – if they are to become intellectuals themselves. But they would be more
Gray 3
prone to take on intellectual identities if we encouraged them to do so at first on
subjects that interest them rather than ones that interest us. (199)
Penrod uses some logos in his argument when he says that the school puts up banners, has
assemblies, and makes video announcements for successful spots teams instead of anything
having to do with academics, which logically shows for sure that sports are given more
attention. This shows some logic in the argument and shows that his entire argument is not
based on personal experience. Someone on an online discussion board once said, "'Man how I hate
nerds . . . if I ever had a tommygun with me . . . I would most probably blow each one of their . .
. heads off' (qtd. In Penrod 754)." If someone clearly says he or she would do this to someone
simply for being smart, it is proven that some people actually hate kids for being smart. Logos
are used very well, especially in Penrod’s essay.
Third, pathos are used in both essays. Penrod appeals to readers’ emotions very much
in the last paragraph of the essay:
Regardless of the causes of anti- intellectualism, the effects are clear and devastating;
society looks down on those individuals who help it to progress, ostracizing its best and
brightest. Some may blame television or general societal degradation for the fall of the
educated, but at heart the most disturbing issue involved is the destruction of promising
personalities; ignoring intellectuals both in school and later on in life crushes its victims,
as illustrated in the following lines:
My loud and bitter screams aren’t being heard
No one is there to hear them or to care
They do not come cuz I’m a nerd
Gray 4
Dealing with this pain is a lot to bear. (Casey F.)
For the sake of smart kids, we all need to “lay off” a little. (757)
Here, he makes readers truly understand that it is not easy for smart kids to be treated the way
that they are. This is one of his best arguments in the entire essay and it does a great job at
getting his point across. By giving a quote such as the one used, Penrod potentially opens
people’s eyes and helps them to realize what someone classified as a nerd goes through. Unlike
Penrod’s work, Graff's work has a fallacy in it, making it the weaker argument. "To say that
students need to see their interest 'through academic eyes' is to say that street smarts are not
good enough" (Graff 204), and this is a fallacy because it is implying something that is not
necessarily true. People may believe that students need to see their interest through academic
eyes, yet still believe that people with street smarts can succeed. Just because it is the weaker
argument, does not mean there is no rhetorical appeal. In "Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate
the Smart Kids," there is no fallacy because it is the stronger argument. Although there are no
fallacies, there are other things. Pathos help to make the argument in “Anti-Intellectualism:
Why We Hate the Smart Kids” effective.
Although both essays make good points, clearly “"Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate
the Smart Kids” gives the better argument of the two. Logos and pathos are used and they help
to make the argument more effective. The essay gives a clear argument that is reasonable and
strong. After hearing an argument about the two essays, how do you feel about intellectualism?
Gray 5
Works Cited
Graff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” They Say I Say. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2010. 198-205. Print.
Penrod, Grant. “Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids.” The Norton Field Guide to
Writing with Readings and Handbook. 3rd ed. Ed. Marilyn Moller. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 2013. 754-757. Print.