Argument Analysis of Boys and Our Inconsistent Economy
The male population has a historical stereotype placed upon them: men overpower women. It is this stigma that has pushed for worldly progression between the sexes, but what if the abilities of men are forever to control our society? The article “A Link Between Fidgety Boys and a Sputtering Economy”, written by David Leonhardt, strikes the matter head-on, carrying the position that the educational issues of boys additionally connects to economic issues of our government. The author reasons that the behavioral split between girls and boys of our youth has an the largest impact upon the inconsistency of the government’s economy. With his sensible premises, Leonhardt sways readers with his …show more content…
He presents information in which experts disagree upon certain solutions for these “issues” of boys, incorporating a position that concludes that improving schools will have a “disproportionate effect on boys” (2014, p. 3, para. 14). However, Leonhardt also presents another opinion, and it explains “that today’s education system… asks boys to sit still for hours… and provides them with few role models in front of the classroom” (2014, p. 3, para. 15). He then follows those statements by voicing that both sides do have understandable points, but adds that experimenting with different solutions will offer “better answers” (2014, p. 3, para. 16) to boys’ suspected behavioral pattern. Leonhardt takes no stance upon which solution would best cure these supposed behavioral issues, so why would he include it in his writing? The main issue within this point in the article is the tone at which he has about the position, stating these solutions as if his argument is a fact instead of a controversial topic. This inclusion is not standard and allows the reader to believe that Leonhardt is not as credible as he is implementing. To try to prove a position is correct is one thing, but to state a position as fact lessens the argument’s …show more content…
In order to improve this, the organization of his writing must be sensible and fluent. For example, Leonhardt has the tendency to present his premises as a lead-in to a presented “fact” such as this: “Men are much more likely to be idle… than women” (2014, p. 1, para. 4). However, the presentation of this information represents two characteristics of his writings: a lack in structure and a lack in credibility. When presenting a premise, one must follow-up with both evidence and an explanation. The evidence that he presents is often a stereotypical statement that seems true. So, rather than throwing in a sentence that states that men have behavioral issues, thus reiterating his premise, Leonhardt should incorporate a study taken upon the behavioral issues of men or boys, which would more effectively back-up his position. Additionally, there was no discussion of the example evidence; it was simply just placed within the text, for which he then moves on and presents another different piece of information. If he was to just further discuss each piece of his evidence, he would gain more credibility as a writer and his position’s structure would be
The male population has a historical stereotype placed upon them: men overpower women. It is this stigma that has pushed for worldly progression between the sexes, but what if the abilities of men are forever to control our society? The article “A Link Between Fidgety Boys and a Sputtering Economy”, written by David Leonhardt, strikes the matter head-on, carrying the position that the educational issues of boys additionally connects to economic issues of our government. The author reasons that the behavioral split between girls and boys of our youth has an the largest impact upon the inconsistency of the government’s economy. With his sensible premises, Leonhardt sways readers with his …show more content…
He presents information in which experts disagree upon certain solutions for these “issues” of boys, incorporating a position that concludes that improving schools will have a “disproportionate effect on boys” (2014, p. 3, para. 14). However, Leonhardt also presents another opinion, and it explains “that today’s education system… asks boys to sit still for hours… and provides them with few role models in front of the classroom” (2014, p. 3, para. 15). He then follows those statements by voicing that both sides do have understandable points, but adds that experimenting with different solutions will offer “better answers” (2014, p. 3, para. 16) to boys’ suspected behavioral pattern. Leonhardt takes no stance upon which solution would best cure these supposed behavioral issues, so why would he include it in his writing? The main issue within this point in the article is the tone at which he has about the position, stating these solutions as if his argument is a fact instead of a controversial topic. This inclusion is not standard and allows the reader to believe that Leonhardt is not as credible as he is implementing. To try to prove a position is correct is one thing, but to state a position as fact lessens the argument’s …show more content…
In order to improve this, the organization of his writing must be sensible and fluent. For example, Leonhardt has the tendency to present his premises as a lead-in to a presented “fact” such as this: “Men are much more likely to be idle… than women” (2014, p. 1, para. 4). However, the presentation of this information represents two characteristics of his writings: a lack in structure and a lack in credibility. When presenting a premise, one must follow-up with both evidence and an explanation. The evidence that he presents is often a stereotypical statement that seems true. So, rather than throwing in a sentence that states that men have behavioral issues, thus reiterating his premise, Leonhardt should incorporate a study taken upon the behavioral issues of men or boys, which would more effectively back-up his position. Additionally, there was no discussion of the example evidence; it was simply just placed within the text, for which he then moves on and presents another different piece of information. If he was to just further discuss each piece of his evidence, he would gain more credibility as a writer and his position’s structure would be