Asserting that ethics can manipulate the way people interpret situations, in their 2009 novel Freakonomics Steven D Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner identify the cause behind many socioeconomic events, contrasting seemingly unrelated topics, and then connect unthought of events to more commonly known ones, bringing out their correlation. Their purpose is to expose how the world really operates, with great influence from moral beliefs, by stripping layers from the surface of modern life in order to encourage readers to explore the hidden side of real world situations and not to take the information given without taking a moment to dissect it. They establish an objective tone with their audience of economically curious people who may also wonder
…show more content…
When introducing the probable importance of names in the success of people, they illustrate the achievements of Loser and Winner Lane, emphasizing the fact that title may or may not affect success (Levitt and Dubner 182). By using a similar pattern throughout the book, they eliminate confusion, as introducing a short story, true or not, makes the contents they discuss far more understandable for all types of readers. Following the entire purpose if Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner juxtapose a generous number of truths to seemingly unrelated topics, connecting things like the legalization of abortion to the drop in crime that began to materialize in the late 1990s (4). It is by this process Levitt and Dubner succeed in defending their claim that even in cases with seemingly trustworthy explanations for occurrence, such as the assertion that an “increased number of police” (119), there are deeper and lesser known events or variables that go far beyond the surface to have an effect. Using facts and studies to prove their odd contrasts, they make sure to strip readers of their reserves on fairly recent 20th century socioeconomic occurrences to push them to realize truths are not always easily found or …show more content…
Abortions, racially base gaps in education, the non-effectiveness of parenting — it all hits home in a variety of audiences in numerous ways, in particular, the topic of abortion. Levitt and Dubner, knowing the subject to be highly controversial, discuss both those who “consider abortion itself to be a violent crime” (142) and those who support the movement, deciding not to take either side. They zoom out from the possibly harsh opinions on abortion only to generalize the effect its legalization has had on the crime rates both in the recent United States and in other countries around the world. Levitt and Dubner’s discussion of the “’unintended benefit’ of legalized abortion” (Levitt and Dubner 142) not only aids in proving their argument that its legalization dropped crime rates significantly, but also produces passionate reactions, both negative and positive, within their audience, even as they keep a fairly clinical point of view. This ability to detach strengthens Levitt and Dubner’s credibility significantly because, by not taking any sort of personal stances on the topic, they avoid much more opposition than most other reactions would have received. The authors’ allusions throughout Freakonomics work in a similar way to the reference to abortions. When attempting to prove
When introducing the probable importance of names in the success of people, they illustrate the achievements of Loser and Winner Lane, emphasizing the fact that title may or may not affect success (Levitt and Dubner 182). By using a similar pattern throughout the book, they eliminate confusion, as introducing a short story, true or not, makes the contents they discuss far more understandable for all types of readers. Following the entire purpose if Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner juxtapose a generous number of truths to seemingly unrelated topics, connecting things like the legalization of abortion to the drop in crime that began to materialize in the late 1990s (4). It is by this process Levitt and Dubner succeed in defending their claim that even in cases with seemingly trustworthy explanations for occurrence, such as the assertion that an “increased number of police” (119), there are deeper and lesser known events or variables that go far beyond the surface to have an effect. Using facts and studies to prove their odd contrasts, they make sure to strip readers of their reserves on fairly recent 20th century socioeconomic occurrences to push them to realize truths are not always easily found or …show more content…
Abortions, racially base gaps in education, the non-effectiveness of parenting — it all hits home in a variety of audiences in numerous ways, in particular, the topic of abortion. Levitt and Dubner, knowing the subject to be highly controversial, discuss both those who “consider abortion itself to be a violent crime” (142) and those who support the movement, deciding not to take either side. They zoom out from the possibly harsh opinions on abortion only to generalize the effect its legalization has had on the crime rates both in the recent United States and in other countries around the world. Levitt and Dubner’s discussion of the “’unintended benefit’ of legalized abortion” (Levitt and Dubner 142) not only aids in proving their argument that its legalization dropped crime rates significantly, but also produces passionate reactions, both negative and positive, within their audience, even as they keep a fairly clinical point of view. This ability to detach strengthens Levitt and Dubner’s credibility significantly because, by not taking any sort of personal stances on the topic, they avoid much more opposition than most other reactions would have received. The authors’ allusions throughout Freakonomics work in a similar way to the reference to abortions. When attempting to prove