Freakonomics Podcast

In an effort to better understand rhetoric and its purpose, we will listen to some pieces of rhetoric, which might provide you with some different ideas about argument and rhetorical strategies.

Some background on the speakers you will soon listen to:

A few years ago, economist Steven D. Levitt published a research project that that contained "a strikingly novel thesis: abortion curbs crime. What Levitt and his co-author claimed, specifically, was that the sharp drop in the United States crime rate during the 1990's -- commonly attributed to factors like better policing, stiffer gun laws and an aging population -- was in fact largely due to the Roe v. Wade decision two decades earlier. The logic was simple: unwanted children are more likely to grow up to become criminals; legalized abortion leads to less unwantedness; therefore, abortion leads to less crime" (Holt). In the world of AP Language, this thought process is called a syllogism, a logical argument in which the conclusion is inferred from two previous premises. But is it accurate?

Levitt didn't stop there. He garnered so much attention that he teamed up with journalist Stephen J. Dubner to publish Freakonomics in 2005, which became a national sensation filled with curious claims and peculiar arguments.

New York Times literary reviewer Jim Holt wrote that the subsequent publication of Freaknomics "answered everything he always wanted to know" because "Levitt has strayed far from the customary paddock of the dismal science in search of interesting problems. How do parents of different races and classes choose names for their children? What sort of contestants on the TV show ''The Weakest Link'' are most likely to be discriminated against by their fellow contestants? If crack dealers make so much money, why do they live with their moms? Such everyday riddles are fair game for the economist, Levitt contends, because their solution involves understanding how people react to incentives" (Holt). Freaknomics spawned a revived interest in economics, simply by changing the way that readers examine an issue by challenging conventional wisdom.

These analyses were subject of controvery, and naturally led to a continuing conversation. Levitt and Dubner went on to produce a series of podcasts to discuss new observations and economic theories. That is what we will listen to today.

Your Assignment: 

Visit www.freakonomics.com. On the navigation bar, scroll over "Radio" then scroll down and select "Podcast Archives."

Choose one podcast from the Freakonomics archive list. The podcast must be at least 14 minutes long (or you can choose 2 six-minute podcasts). Most podcasts are in the 30-minute range and invite credible speakers (an appeal to ethos!). Pick one with an intriguing title, rather than the length of time. Listen and take notes on the claim, argument, and supporting evidence.

The claim is often revealed in the podcast title, which is so outlandish that listeners can't help but be intrigued. Some claims include "Can You Be Too Smart for Your Own Good?", "Would You Let a Coin Toss Decide Your Future?", and "Should Tipping Be Banned?". Listen as Levitt and and Dubner discuss these claims and pay attention to the assertions (unsupported opinions) versus qualified opinions (supported with examples, statistics, personal experience, etc).

Compose a blog post titled "FREAKONOMICS PODCAST" that answers the following:

1. What is being said? (identify the argument)

2. How is it being said? (identify rhetorical strategies, assertions, and qualified opinions)

3. What is the effect? (how do listeners feel? how *should* the listeners feel/react? Did the podcast discussion accomplish its goal?)

*Stay up to date on the most current questions in Freakonomics by following Levitt/Dubner on twitter: @Freakonomics

Works Cited: Holt, Jim. "Freakonomics: Everything He Wanted to Know." New York Times 15 May 2005. Print.