A Rhetorical Analysis of a Central Argument in Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers In his acclaimed novel Outliers, a book that details the various factors that contribute to success, Malcolm Gladwell aims to convince his audience of the simple yet powerful assertion that success cannot simply be attributed to the choices one makes, but rather that it is a product of opportunity. “Outliers are those who have been given opportunities — and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them”, claims Gladwell. Although he makes several noteworthy points within this novel, the idea that success and opportunity are tightly interwoven serves as his most pivotal argument. The use of such devices as anecdotes and statistics help Gladwell construct
…show more content…
For instance, hasty generalization is defined as coming to a conclusion without sufficient evidence that corroborates it. Gladwell makes many hasty generalizations within this novel, such as when he described the life of Joe Flom, a prominent Jewish attorney. He concludes that the way to be successful then was to be the child of Jewish immigrants and to be born in the 1930s. He gives a few examples and makes the claim that the grandchildren of Jewish immigrant garment workers become doctors and lawyers. The evidence he provides to support his claim is clearly insufficient. It is a fallacy itself to assume that the key to success is being the descendants of Jewish immigrants. He also utilizes a genetic fallacy, a conclusion created off the basis that the origins of a person determine their characteristics and worth. The most evident example of this fallacy is his chapter on why Asian children are better at mathematics. He claims that because their ancestors knew the meaning of “meaningful” work by cultivating rice day in and day out, they excel at mathematics. Why does he get to determine what constitutes as meaningful work and what does not? In addition, how does Gladwell explain the multitude of Asian children who struggle in math? One could also claim that this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which claims that if B occurred after A, then A must have caused
For instance, hasty generalization is defined as coming to a conclusion without sufficient evidence that corroborates it. Gladwell makes many hasty generalizations within this novel, such as when he described the life of Joe Flom, a prominent Jewish attorney. He concludes that the way to be successful then was to be the child of Jewish immigrants and to be born in the 1930s. He gives a few examples and makes the claim that the grandchildren of Jewish immigrant garment workers become doctors and lawyers. The evidence he provides to support his claim is clearly insufficient. It is a fallacy itself to assume that the key to success is being the descendants of Jewish immigrants. He also utilizes a genetic fallacy, a conclusion created off the basis that the origins of a person determine their characteristics and worth. The most evident example of this fallacy is his chapter on why Asian children are better at mathematics. He claims that because their ancestors knew the meaning of “meaningful” work by cultivating rice day in and day out, they excel at mathematics. Why does he get to determine what constitutes as meaningful work and what does not? In addition, how does Gladwell explain the multitude of Asian children who struggle in math? One could also claim that this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which claims that if B occurred after A, then A must have caused