Harrington1 Zachary Harrington Professor Alicia Bolton English 101 October 1, 2013 Intellectualism, To Be or Not To Be?

Arguing, the backbone of college courses today. In every course a person takes they will be required to argue the stance on a subject, one way or another. But, arguing is not what people make it out to be. In fact most college students struggle with it. Arguing is not merely having an opinion on a topic, but developing convincing evidence, using rhetorical appeal such as logos, ethos, and pathos. Two essays that can be defined as argumentative essays are Gerald Graffs Hidden Intellectualism and Grant Penrods Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids. Graffs essay illustrates that interest in non-intellectual things does not make you anti-intellectual so much as intellectual by other means (200). He then calls upon the schools to convert this interest in sports, cars, fashion, etc. into more academic subjects: But they would be more 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. Meanwhile, Penrods Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids states that academic base events dont get the recognition that football and other sports would get because theyre just the nerds (754). Also, that the word nerd doesnt portray a positive image to others. Penrod mentions that society is not geared for nerds and intellectualism is laughable in the eyes of young people: Uneducated success extends far beyond just singers and sports stars, too even the current President of the United States (Written when George W. Bush was president) presents the success of nonintellectualism(Penrod 756).

Harrington2 Both Graff and Penrod state their stance and support it well, Graff provides a more effective essay through the use of logos and a counterargument. The rhetorical appeal of logos is clearly present in Graffs Hidden Intellectualism. First of all, he establishes a connection to the topic through an anecdote. He explains I offer my own adolescent experience as a case in point (Graff 199). Basically, Graff is living proof the having non-intellectual interests or street smarts doesnt make you any less intellectual. Graff relates non-intellectual topics to intellectual subjects. He states, I was your typical teenage anti-intellectual---or so I believed for a long time. I have recently come to think however, that my preference for sports over school work was not anti-intellectualism so much as intellectualism by other means(Graff 199-200). Grant means to meet the student where his or her interests are and use those to build into a more academic subject. Graff uses the topics of car, fashion, sports, etc. to relate to the readers child hood and what interested them at the time, and then he provides proof that these subjects can be related back to intellectualism. His strongest use of logos comes when he explains how he realized that his interest in sports and begin tough let to him becoming intellectual: It was in those discussions with friends about toughness and sports, I think, and in my reading of sports books and magazines, that I began to learn the rudiments of the intellectual life: how to make and argument, weight different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalization, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation about ideas. (Graff 201) In other words, students will perform better when their academics are connected to their personal interests, and then the student will be prompt to improve his or her reading, writing, etc. because the subject is in their interest. Graffs reasoning are very convincing because they give his personal experience, relate to every reader, and are supported with facts and examples.

Harrington3 However, Penrods use of logos in Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids is not as effective as Graffs. Penrod doesnt provide an anecdote to connect himself to his point. Instead, he refers to the Football Team from Mountain valley High School winning the state championship, along with the Science Bowl Team, the Speech and Debate Team, and the Academic Decathlon Team. He observes that the Football Team received banners, video announcements, and countless recognition. However the Nerds received all of ten minutes of recognition. Penrod uses this to show that our society *an+ outright distain for the educated (Penrod 754), this is a hasty generalization fallacy; some areas hold education at a high regard. He claims that celebrity drop out such as well known cultural icons Christina Aguilera, Kid Rock, LL Cool J, and Sammy Sosa*make+ intelligence or education laughable in the eyes of the media-inundated youth (Penrod 755-6). This is a slippery slope fallacy, just because you drop out doesnt mean youll become a celebrity like it lead on. If he is going to list the famous he should list how many became famous to the total number of people that drop out every year. Penrod cast a negative shadow over nerds in general that is not always there, and his list of famous drop out is not credible because it is not in reference to the total number of drop outs. Another strong suit of Graffs essay is his counterargument, or attention to other positions on the topic. He states To be sure, school contained plenty of competition, which became more invidious as one moved up the ladder (Graff 203). In this Graff provides an alternative look at his idea of hidden intellectualism; sports, cars, fashion, etc provide completion but school does as well. However, Graff claims School competition, in short, reproduced the less attractive features of sports culture without those that crate close bonds and community (Graff 203), in other words he means the individualism of school activity doesnt crated the brotherhood that sports do. Most people condemn playing sports because they will hurt you grades, on the contrary Graff sees the similarities in them; my schools missed the opportunity to capitalize on an element of drama and conflict that the intellectual world

Harrington4 shares with sports (Gaff 203). His ability to identify the opposing sides common argument and show its flaws illustrated the he considered other positions on the topic. Penrods essay also contains somewhat of a counterargument, however unlike Graffs Penrods counterargument fails to weaken his opposing views. He claims People holding doctorate degrees earned more than twice the salary of high school graduates in the year 200.(Penrod 757). Penrod states an opposing view but fails to show any evidence to weaken it. Unlike Graff, Penrod states a counterargument he just fails to disprove it. In conclusion, both essays bring interesting points and views, Grant Penrods Antiintellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids isnt as effective as Gerald Graffs Hidden Intellectualism. Graff provides better logos and examples along with a well planned counterargument, while Penrods views are more one sided and lack an average counterargument. Graffs essay is a fine example of an argumentative essay. However, Penrods, is only good to show fallacies.

Harrington5 Work Cited Graff, Gerald. Hidden Intellectualism. They Say I Say. 2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, and Cathy Birkenstein. New York: Norton, 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 & Co., 2013. 754-757. Print.