Gray 1

Rachel Gray Professor Alicia Bolton English 101 17 October 2013 Arguments on Intellectualism: Having Street Smarts and Overlooking Academics Have you ever thought about what actually makes an argument effective? Logos, pathos, ethos, and fallacies are often used in argumentative essays. Rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, and ethos) are often necessary in having a successful argumentative essay. Logos is something with a logical meaning. Similar to logos, ethos appeals to readers' trust by convincing them that the writer is creditable and trustworthy. On the other hand, pathos tends to appeal to readers emotions. These must be used rationally in academic essays or a reader may feel manipulated. A fallacy, something that should not be found in a successful argumentative essay, is faulty reasoning which often occurs when a rhetorical appeal is misused. These fallacies tend to ruin an authors creditability because they are basically wrong information. Both essays that will be discussed talk about intellectualism. One essay specifically talks about being able to be educated not just by academics but by street smarts. The other essay talks about how sports get more recognition than important things such as academics. AntiIntellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids by Grant Penrod is a better essay than Hidden Intellectualism by Gerald Graff, because its arguments have more convincing reasons and evidence, it has a better use of logos, and it contains pathos. To start off with, both essays have arguments, but Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids has better evidence and more convincing reasons. Both make fairly good

Gray 2

arguments, but "Hidden Intellectualism" is the least effective. The argument in Hidden Intellectualism is not quite as strong as the argument in Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids because it does not have enough reasoning and proof. In Graff's essay, he argues that many teachers do not take full advantage of some students potential. Just because students have street smarts does not mean they will not succeed in school, and intellectualism can be present in street smarts. According to him, intellectualism is not only present in someones academic level of skill, but can be found in anything. He gives personal experience which provides a good argument, but not as well as Penrod does in his essay. Graff says that something as simple as playing sports helped him gain his intellectualism and become smart. His personal experience only proves that he, himself believes it because he is the one that went through it. Unlike Graff, in his essay, Penrod explains why it is said that people hate nerds. He uses a specific high school to show why this is true, because special recognition is given to sports teams like football for doing good, but none is given to teams having to do with academics even if they get the same accomplishments. Instead of just giving personal experience, Penrod uses an entire high school as an example. He helps people to realize that sports have started to become more important than academics. From reading this essay, one may see that people tend to look down on nerds and praise athletics. Penrod's ideas make perfect sense and are easier to agree with than the arguments of Graff. Second, logos are used in both essays, helping to make them argumentative essays. In Hidden Intellectualism, logos is used when Graff says, Students do need to read models of intellectually challenging writing and Orwell is a great one if they are to become intellectuals themselves. But they would be more

Gray 3

prone to take on intellectual identities if we encouraged them to do so at first on subjects that interest them rather than ones that interest us. (199) Penrod uses some logos in his argument when he says that the school puts up banners, has assemblies, and makes video announcements for successful spots teams instead of anything having to do with academics, which logically shows for sure that sports are given more attention. This shows some logic in the argument and shows that his entire argument is not based on personal experience. Someone on an online discussion board once said, "'Man how I hate nerds . . . if I ever had a tommygun with me . . . I would most probably blow each one of their . . . heads off' (qtd. In Penrod 754)." If someone clearly says he or she would do this to someone simply for being smart, it is proven that some people actually hate kids for being smart. Logos are used very well, especially in Penrods essay. Third, pathos is used in both essays. Penrod appeals to readers emotions very much in the last paragraph of the essay: Regardless of the causes of anti- intellectualism, the effects are clear and devastating; society looks down on those individuals who help it to progress, ostracizing its best and brightest. Some may blame television or general societal degradation for the fall of the educated, but at heart the most disturbing issue involved is the destruction of promising personalities; ignoring intellectuals both in school and later on in life crushes its victims, as illustrated in the following lines: My loud and bitter screams arent being heard No one is there to hear them or to care They do not come cuz Im a nerd

Gray 4

Dealing with this pain is a lot to bear. (Casey F.) For the sake of smart kids, we all need to lay off a little. (757) Here, he makes readers truly understand that it is not easy for smart kids to be treated the way that they are. This is one of his best arguments in the entire essay and it does a great job at getting his point across. By giving a quote such as the one used, Penrod potentially opens peoples eyes and helps them to realize what someone classified as a nerd goes through. Unlike Penrods work, Graff's work has a fallacy in it, making it the weaker argument. "To say that students need to see their interest 'through academic eyes' is to say that street smarts are not good enough" (Graff 204), and this is a fallacy because it is implying something that is not necessarily true. People may believe that students need to see their interest through academic eyes, yet still believe that people with street smarts can succeed. Just because it is the weaker argument does not mean there is no rhetorical appeal. In "Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids," there is no fallacy because it is the stronger argument. Although there are no fallacies, there are other things. Pathos help to make the argument in Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids effective. Although both essays make good points, clearly "Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids gives the better argument of the two. Logos and pathos are used and they help to make the argument more effective. The essay gives a clear argument that is reasonable and strong. After hearing an argument about the two essays, how do you feel about intellectualism?

Gray 5

Works Cited Graff, Gerald. Hidden Intellectualism. They Say I Say. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 198-205. Print. Penrod, Grant. Anti- Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids. The Norton Field Guide to Writing with Readings and Handbook. 3rd ed. Ed. Marilyn Moller. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2013. 754-757. Print.