read a few very strong examples of a Rhetorical Critique below ...
fullName
Prof. Frey
ENG 102
1/30/14
An Analysis of David Brooks’ “People Like Us”
In David Brook’s essay entitled “People Like Us” he successfully crafts an argument stating that
Americans are not truly accepting of diversity and tend to group themselves into homogenous communities. Brooks
relies heavily on data collection to prove the monotony and predictability of American society. Brooks believes that
Americans cluster themselves together in such a way that we buy the same food, hold the same political and
religious beliefs, and share the same feelings on topics such as motorhomes. Throughout the essay, Brooks slowly
begins to inspire feelings of guilt for the reader, finishing the essay by asking if the reader truly believes in
American diversity.
Throughout his essay, Brooks weaves a wide variety of evidence to reinforce his argument that despite an
emphasis on diversity in America, Americans continuously put themselves into homogenous communities
effectively segregating themselves from people with different beliefs and ideas. An example of his use of data as
evidence for his argument can be seen in the fifth paragraph in which he comments on the lack of progression of
racial integration of neighborhoods. Brooks states, “Over the past generation reformers have tried heroically, and in
many cases successfully, to end housing discrimination. But recent patterns aren’t encouraging: according to an
analysis of the 2000 census data, the 1990s saw only a slight increase in the racial integration of neighborhoods in
the United States.” (pg.133) With this evidence the reader is more likely to believe in Brooks’ argument seeing that
an effort to increase the racial integration of neighborhoods only led to a “slight increase”. Brooks also uses
empirical data to speak of the uniformity of professors and their political and religious preferences. Brooks
comments on this by saying, “…a recent study of several universities by the conservative Center for the Study of
Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute found that roughly 90 percent of those professors in the arts
and sciences who had registered with a political party had registered Democratic.” Despite the fact that we do not
know the ratio of professors who had not registered with a political party to those that did, the reader feels inclined
to believe that this evidence supports Brooks’ argument because of its scientific context.
Brooks also works to gain credibility with his readers by establishing his voice within the tone of the essay
and also by treating the reader as an equal. Throughout his essay Brooks shows the equality between him and his
audience with the use of words such as “we” and “us”. The reader is also inclined to believe in the inherent
goodness of his character by the way that Brooks is arguing for a more diverse and open-minded communities where
people with different beliefs and cultures can live seamlessly together. In speaking to his credibility, the reader also
believes of Brooks’ experience and familiarity with the subject when he says, “…what I have seen all around the
country is people making strenuous efforts to group themselves with people who are basically like themselves.” As
the reader, we can trust that Brooks is familiar with the subject of American communities because of his travels
around the country.
Towards the end of his essay, Brooks also relies heavily on the emotional appeal to his audience in which
he inspires feelings of guilt and blame for not surrounding ourselves with a more diverse population. Throughout
his essay Brooks speaks to human nature’s tendency towards homogeneity and the condition of the human to feel
more comfortable around like-minded individuals. But Brooks argues that despite this tendency, humans should
work to seek diversity in their everyday lives. In the second to last paragraph of his essay, Brooks offers
suggestions on how to better integrate diversity into the reader’s life. The last two sentences of Brooks’ essay is
where the reader feels the greatest amount of guilt placed on them by Brooks. In these sentences Brooks directs the
question at the reader asking them, “Look around at your daily life. Are you really in touch with the broad diversity
of American life? Do you care?”
fullName
1/30/12
Jeremy Frey
English 102
“People Like Us” Rhetorical Critique
In David Brooks’ magazine article “People Like Us”, the author argues that the world is not as diverse as
we might suspect on a small scale because people tend to try to choose people like themselves and the author does
this by writing from a position where all we can determine about the author is that they know the subject well and
that they respect others’ values, by focusing on an American audience that care about the subject, and by giving
many real world connectable examples that seem very realistic.
The author’s only real ethical appeal is through credibility. The author never mentions himself, equates
himself with the audience, or shows any real bias. With no real information about the author, it feels as if the whole
article is just a disembodied voice discussing things with the audience in an intelligent manner. The only thing we
ever come to understand about the author is that he knows and has thought about this subject a lot. We can tell this
because his ideas are both incredibly thought out and unorthodox meaning that he most likely either come up with
and fleshed out these ideas himself or has spent enough time researching this topic to stumble upon these less than
mainstream ideas. All of this works very well to appeal to the audience on a subject that they feel strongly about
because by showing no bias or giving any information the audience could interpret as bias, the author is able to
present a disinterested persona.
The audience that is targeted is the typical American: one who loves the idea of diversity, believes that it is
one of the things that makes America great, but also self-segregates themselves both consciously and unconsciously.
The audience is also just generally educated which is shown in the simple non-technical words used and the degree
to which the author talks in depth about segregation. We can also tell that the audience is from all backgrounds as
the author makes sure to alienate no one. When he talks about blacks, he talks about whites, Hispanics, and Asians.
When he talks about Republicans, he talks about Democrats. All of this works very effectively as an appeal on the
audience because they feel as if their opinions and values are being accepted, they care about the subject matter, and
they can easily understand the article.
The work makes only a few claims. This claims are that America considers itself to be a very diverse place,
that people believe that the world is becoming a more diverse place, and that despite both of these things, America is
actually becoming a much less diverse place on the small scale. The logical appeal made by the author is made by
using a copious number of examples to prove the claims. He always makes to compare and contrast all of his
evidences. He talks about democrats in education and then switches to talking about Evangelical Christians and
republicans. This works well to help show the audience many different examples that serve as evidence to back up
the claims.
fullName
Instructor-Frey
English 102-69
January 29, 2014
David Brooks, in his short essay “People Like Us”, unsuccessfully provides arguments to support that
America is not as diverse as it has been made out to be. In the beginning of the essay Brooks expresses that “Maybe
it’s time to admit the obvious. We don’t really care about diversity all that much in America…” Brooks seems to
take the lead here by grabbing the reader and telling them exactly what his essay is going to be about with his very
blunt and biased opinion. However, his choice of words could potentially anger some of his readers, which in return
could affect the way the essay is interpreted by the readers. Although there are some valid and relatable points made
throughout his essay, Brook’s unorganized structure, misuse of ethos and pathos, along with his failure to appeal to
logos, extinguishes his motive in explaining that America is not diverse and that people tend to group themselves
with others who are similar to them.
In order for any essay to be understood, it is essential for the thesis to be made clear because it will in
return shape the structure of the essay. In “People Like Us”, Brooks fails to clarify his thesis in his first paragraph,
which furthermore destroys the structure of the essay. He does mention that what he has “seen all around the country
is people making strenuous efforts to group themselves with people who are basically like themselves.” This being
the last sentence of the first paragraph gives the reader a sense that this is in fact his thesis. He does make a valid
point here that people do tend to group themselves with others who are similar, but he does not state any of his main
points in his thesis so he fails to set up his essay with any structure to go along with this thesis. The readers can
assume that Brooks is going to expand on this, but there is still no structure to the rest of his essay.
It is unquestionable, that not only does Brooks’ misuse the ethical (ethos) and emotional (pathos) appeals in
the first paragraph, but he also fails to use them properly throughout the rest of his essay. Brooks had a good start
with the ethical appeal by incorporating the reader when he said, “we don’t…” however, in the rest of the sentence
Brooks makes a judgment about the readers. It is very hard to keep credibility as a writer after bluntly stating that
America doesn’t really care. Although he does do a good job of expressing his voice as an author, his poor choice of
words quickly degrades his character and credibility. As for the emotional appeal, Brooks actually does a great job
of trying to appeal to the emotions of the audience by saying things such as “We are finding places where we are
comfortable and where we feel we can flourish,” which a lot of people can relate to. The only problem Brooks has
with the emotional appeal is that he fails to appeal logically and back up his opinions.
A logical appeal (logos) is one of the most important appeals when it comes to a rhetorical essay. Evidence
is a key word when it comes to logical appeals, and even though Brooks does back up his opinions with evidence, he
fails to do so properly. Brooks pulls out many facts and he even states, “evidence suggests that some neighborhoods
become more segregated over time.” Although this could be true fact and it backs up his opinions, Brooks fails to
cite a source explaining where his evidence came from. Without any actual evidence or hard facts, Brooks fails to
appeal to logos.
David Brooks, although with good intentions and convincing, does not successfully get across his point
because he fails to structure his essay by having a foggy thesis, and also he fails to use ethical, emotional, and
logical appeals.
fullName
Jeremy Frey
English 102, Section 069
1-28-14
Critique
In his article “People Like Us”, David Brooks argues that the United States lacks overall diversity due to
the fact that people tend to only associate with others like themselves, and attempts to encourage diversity.
However, Brooks’ lack of sources and appeals to the wrong emotions fail to deliver the intended message.
The article opens with Brooks’ thesis: the truth about diversity is that, although it is celebrated in theory, it
doesn’t quite actually exist. Brooks fails to establish his credibility in the following sentences by writing racial
stereotypes: “a black Pentecostal minister, an Asian short-order cook, a white antiglobalization activist” (par. 1). His
credibility is further reduced when he says, “But I have never been to or heard of that neighborhood,” as if he is
trying to imply that he is a well-rounded man that knows about every single community there is in the country. This
may just be an attempt at humor, but it makes it seem as though the rest of the article will be entirely based off of
and limited to his own knowledge and opinion, which detracts from the possibility that the article is one based on
factual evidence.
Although Brooks draws good examples to support his views, the examples lack definite sources; this
discredits their validity as well as Brooks’ reliability. For example, Brooks discusses the percentages of professors at
various universities that have opposing views, in order support his statement, “…The institutions that talk the most
about diversity often practice it the least” (par. 12). The statistics are all specific and would be believable, but
Brooks has no sources to back up these claims. Many of these examples are also generalizations, such as how people
in California and Florida “tend to drive small foreign cars and read Rolling Stone and Scientific American” (par. 7)
or how mostly Democrats attend elite schools and Republicans don’t (par. 13). Not only do these generalizations
lack support, but they may also succeed in angering some members of the audience who don’t fit under those
generalizations.
Brooks also attempts to provoke feelings of guilt in the audience to convince them to try to be more
diverse. Towards the end, he gives suggestions to the audience of what they should do to break out of their familiar
circles, but these might be interpreted as being overly commanding, especially because he doesn’t make any
implications that he is or will be doing the same. The article closes with him rhetorically asking the audience if they
actually care about the diversity, or lack thereof, in America. Again, this might irritate the audience rather than
enlighten them, because throughout the article, Brooks has made no sign of being diverse himself. The biggest issue
with the article is how Brooks has been making all these points to try to prove that the U.S. isn’t diverse, and how
it’s a part of human nature (par. 7); and yet, in the end, he essentially refutes everything he’s been saying by
ordering the audience to be diverse. Furthermore, instead of encouraging the prevention of racism and general
narrow-mindedness—the major factors of segregation (par. 4, par. 13)—he instead gives impractical suggestions
that even he himself admits are superficial (par. 16).
Full name
Jeremy Frey
English 102-017
January 29, 2014
People Like Us
The text titled “People Like Us” by David Brooks, is a piece discussing what is wrong with the perceived
illusion the American public has of diversity in our community. Brooks speaks a lot about how Americans boast
their pride of being diverse, yet it is almost never completely carried out. It is human nature that people separate
themselves from different people to create more homogenous communities, says Brooks. He elaborates more with a
slight counter point that America as a whole is highly diverse, yet when examined neighborhood by neighborhood,
the truth makes itself very well known; in a neighborhood, there is almost always one type of person living there.
Brooks closes his argument with two rhetorical questions that are meant to shed new light on what people think of
themselves, and what they deem as important.
Brooks’ logical appeal is based almost solely on facts and statistic. He uses many large words to create a
sense of being an authority on this concept with his facts being the proof. He points out that people group up based
on their socio-economic backgrounds, and then presents the data to support it. It is nearly impossible to argue with
his points in this sense; as such, he certainly is successful in using this appeal. The one downfall of it, however,
would be that it narrows the audience.
An emotional appeal is present in Brooks’ piece when he mentions people’s backgrounds, and what the
reader holds to be true of diversity. These are two very touchy subjects for people, beliefs and backgrounds. This is
designed to suck the reader in based off of their emotional desire to prove someone wrong. The other is able to stay
likable even though he is making you question your idea of the world around you because of the very light hearted
joking and mocking that he demonstrates throughout the entire work. This is very successful because the
combination of these two emotional appeals draws you in, and it keeps you reading on.
Brooks takes a stab at an ethical appeal throughout, but it is very prevalent in his last paragraph; he asks
two rhetorical questions. “Are you really in touch with the broad diversity of American life? Do you really care?”
(Brooks 136) This appeal is strong because it reinforces his point that although Americans think they are diverse,
they are very wrong. Additionally, it points out how very content they are with it, and that something needs to be
done to fix it.
Brooks has an overarching point that encompasses his entire passage that is a combination of two appeals.
He uses an emotional appeal approach by making the American reader question what they are doing to which they
are supposed to retort with a “That can’t be true,” and then are immediately faced with his logical appeal of data to
really drive it home that “Yes. Yes that is true.” He starts you of comfortably by mentioning what you believe to be
true, that you, the reader, are a part of this bigger picture of diversity in this society. He then counters that with
studies proving the human need to group up based off of culture, education level, and background called psychodemographic grouping. This combination of these two appeals is very successful in the sense that it solidifies his
point in a way that actually lends desire to do something to the reader.
Brooks writes an article that argues a point that seems very important to him. The strengths of this
work fit very well together, and play off each other in a way that not only gets the reader thinking, but also gets them
doing. It makes you want to change your answer to his last question.