In his article, Malcolm Gladwell claims to understand how people become masters in a certain field; Gladwell believes a person must practice for 10,000 hours. His 10,000-hour rule receives criticism from other writers; Jared Sandman and David Bradley belong to this group of critics. Jared Sandman disagrees with Gladwell’s claim; instead, he challenges Gladwell’s claim by adopting the 500,000-word rule. The 500,000-word rule demonstrates a person’s writing career more quickly than the 10,000- hour rule. In contrast to Sandman, David Bradley considers Gladwell’s 10,000-hour rule a too small of amount of time to become an expert. In other words, he believes 10,000 hours is a good goal to reach, but a person must go beyond this point to really
…show more content…
Bradley mentions, “This ’10,000 hours of practice’ rule is based on research by psychologist Andres Ericsson’s”; he counteracts Gladwell’s own claim by using the research Gladwell used to make his argument. This allows Bradley to easily expose the flaws in Gladwell’s reasoning. He explains that Ericsson does not believe that 10,000 hours is the benchmark of someone’s skill; Bradley quotes, “…the best group of musicians had accumulated an average, not a total over 10,000 hours by the age of twenty.” Bradley analysis of Ericsson’s study elaborates upon the information in Gladwell’s original article; he unmasks what appears to be a major detail of the study. Bradley illustrates Gladwell as making a blind assumption and ignoring part of the information. Bradley reasons that Gladwell’s rule may work for some, but he cannot generalize the whole group based on the average. On the other hand, Sandman reasons through the invalidity of Gladwell’s claim; in others words appeals to logic to explain his position. In the beginning of his paper, Sandman explains, “…I would have to write 20,000+ pages before my work is worth publication”; he then mentions 20,000 pages would equal fifty novels. Similar to Gladwell, Sandman breaks down 10,000 hours into unfathomable units; the average reader may not …show more content…
He states, “Anyone who had heard me strumming might suggest that I plug headphones into my guitar amp and practice for another 10,000 hours before letting anyone ever hear me play again.” He exposes himself as a participant of this phenomena; he illustrates to his readers that he, obviously, did not have the dedication to master music. By exposing his own story to the reader, Bradley informs the readers of his personal connection to subject; this establishes Bradley’s reliability. Like Bradley, Sandman also relies on his own experience to relate with his audience. Sandman intends for his article to be read by writers; his wants writers to understand the absurdity of Gladwell’s claim by sharing his experience. Sandman claims, “I felt like I’d paid my dues- or at least didn’t consider myself a fraud compared to ‘real’ authors”; by stating this, Sandman claims that he also is a professional writer. Throughout the rest of the article, Sandman continues to summarize his writing process. Sandman heavily relies on his own experience to prove his, while Bradley only uses his own credibility as a musician to simply connect with his readers. A writer cannot present a valid argument when he or she focuses on only one of the rhetorical appeals; in this case, Sandman wants his readers to believe his claim based his own
Bradley mentions, “This ’10,000 hours of practice’ rule is based on research by psychologist Andres Ericsson’s”; he counteracts Gladwell’s own claim by using the research Gladwell used to make his argument. This allows Bradley to easily expose the flaws in Gladwell’s reasoning. He explains that Ericsson does not believe that 10,000 hours is the benchmark of someone’s skill; Bradley quotes, “…the best group of musicians had accumulated an average, not a total over 10,000 hours by the age of twenty.” Bradley analysis of Ericsson’s study elaborates upon the information in Gladwell’s original article; he unmasks what appears to be a major detail of the study. Bradley illustrates Gladwell as making a blind assumption and ignoring part of the information. Bradley reasons that Gladwell’s rule may work for some, but he cannot generalize the whole group based on the average. On the other hand, Sandman reasons through the invalidity of Gladwell’s claim; in others words appeals to logic to explain his position. In the beginning of his paper, Sandman explains, “…I would have to write 20,000+ pages before my work is worth publication”; he then mentions 20,000 pages would equal fifty novels. Similar to Gladwell, Sandman breaks down 10,000 hours into unfathomable units; the average reader may not …show more content…
He states, “Anyone who had heard me strumming might suggest that I plug headphones into my guitar amp and practice for another 10,000 hours before letting anyone ever hear me play again.” He exposes himself as a participant of this phenomena; he illustrates to his readers that he, obviously, did not have the dedication to master music. By exposing his own story to the reader, Bradley informs the readers of his personal connection to subject; this establishes Bradley’s reliability. Like Bradley, Sandman also relies on his own experience to relate with his audience. Sandman intends for his article to be read by writers; his wants writers to understand the absurdity of Gladwell’s claim by sharing his experience. Sandman claims, “I felt like I’d paid my dues- or at least didn’t consider myself a fraud compared to ‘real’ authors”; by stating this, Sandman claims that he also is a professional writer. Throughout the rest of the article, Sandman continues to summarize his writing process. Sandman heavily relies on his own experience to prove his, while Bradley only uses his own credibility as a musician to simply connect with his readers. A writer cannot present a valid argument when he or she focuses on only one of the rhetorical appeals; in this case, Sandman wants his readers to believe his claim based his own