The main argument of chapter three is that “conventional wisdom” is not always completely accurate. Conventional wisdom is meant to be convenient for the public and easy to understand even if it happens to be fabricated. For instance, it is conventional wisdom that women need to be especially careful nowadays because it is said that one in three women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, even though “the actual figure is more like one in eight” (87). The authors use a variety of topics to explain their point, but focus on the fact that a lot of, if not most, drug dealers still happen to live with their parents. Millions of people believe in some sort of conventional wisdom, for example: every drug dealer is extremely successful. Realistically
…show more content…
Similarly, the main topic of this argument is introduced later in the chapter when it is shown that the media portrayed crack dealing as “one of the most profitable jobs in America” (89) and revealed that “not only did most of the crack dealers still live in the projects, but most of them still lived at home with their moms” (89). This is an effective introduction because it leaves people wondering what the answer to such an outrageous question is. It is also an effectual preamble because drug dealers are depicted by society to be cold hearted criminals who grew up on the streets, abandoned by their parents. Due to this stereotype, it comes as a surprise to many readers to see that they not only have a relationship with their families, but they still live with them. Though drug dealers have a terrible reputation due to their illegal activities, a lot of them are still accepted in their homes and help try to provide for the people they love. The introduction is attention-grabbing because readers are eager to learn why the most successful business results in the “employees” still living at home instead of using their wages to move out and start their own lives. Surely every young adult’s dream is to leave their parent’s home in hopes of becoming more …show more content…
First off, one convincing piece of evidence comes from the gang studied by Sudhir Venkatesh, a student at the University of Chicago pursuing a PhD in sociology, makes a monthly nonwage profit total of about fourteen thousand dollars that it is able to give out to the members. Though this may seem like more than enough, the “net monthly profit accruing to leader [is] $8,500” (99). Over half of the money earned goes to one man, while a large abundance of it also goes to the other top 2.2 percent of the gang. Another convincing piece of evidence is that according to these statistics, it is revealed that the combined monthly gang wages excluding the leader’s cut is only nine thousand five hundred dollars. This would mean that foot soldiers, the lowest ranking but still paid gang members, only receive three dollars and thirty cents per month. Another study shows that the “chance of being killed [is] 1 in 4” (101) while in the most dangerous job in the U.S. has “only a 1-in-200 chance of being killed” (101) which is most likely accurate. One piece of evidence stated that is not very convincing though, is that these people are not risking their lives selling crack for the profit as a foot soldier, but rather for the incentive that “if the prize is big enough, they will form a line down the block just
Similarly, the main topic of this argument is introduced later in the chapter when it is shown that the media portrayed crack dealing as “one of the most profitable jobs in America” (89) and revealed that “not only did most of the crack dealers still live in the projects, but most of them still lived at home with their moms” (89). This is an effective introduction because it leaves people wondering what the answer to such an outrageous question is. It is also an effectual preamble because drug dealers are depicted by society to be cold hearted criminals who grew up on the streets, abandoned by their parents. Due to this stereotype, it comes as a surprise to many readers to see that they not only have a relationship with their families, but they still live with them. Though drug dealers have a terrible reputation due to their illegal activities, a lot of them are still accepted in their homes and help try to provide for the people they love. The introduction is attention-grabbing because readers are eager to learn why the most successful business results in the “employees” still living at home instead of using their wages to move out and start their own lives. Surely every young adult’s dream is to leave their parent’s home in hopes of becoming more …show more content…
First off, one convincing piece of evidence comes from the gang studied by Sudhir Venkatesh, a student at the University of Chicago pursuing a PhD in sociology, makes a monthly nonwage profit total of about fourteen thousand dollars that it is able to give out to the members. Though this may seem like more than enough, the “net monthly profit accruing to leader [is] $8,500” (99). Over half of the money earned goes to one man, while a large abundance of it also goes to the other top 2.2 percent of the gang. Another convincing piece of evidence is that according to these statistics, it is revealed that the combined monthly gang wages excluding the leader’s cut is only nine thousand five hundred dollars. This would mean that foot soldiers, the lowest ranking but still paid gang members, only receive three dollars and thirty cents per month. Another study shows that the “chance of being killed [is] 1 in 4” (101) while in the most dangerous job in the U.S. has “only a 1-in-200 chance of being killed” (101) which is most likely accurate. One piece of evidence stated that is not very convincing though, is that these people are not risking their lives selling crack for the profit as a foot soldier, but rather for the incentive that “if the prize is big enough, they will form a line down the block just