Sunday, November 20, 2011

"How About Better Parents?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-about-better-parents.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This article, by Thomas Friedman, attempts to convince the readers that we place the blame for American children's low test scores in the wrong place.  Friedman establishes a confident and matter of fact tone, and through diction, details and syntax is able to make the reader see that teachers are not the only factor in education.

Diction:  Friedman uses strong word choice.  Words such as "thrive" and "achievement" show that the author is intelligent. They are strong, 5 dollar words that make Friedman seem trustworthy.  Obviously he must know what he is talking about, after all, he is using such smart words.  The readers are suddenly open to whatever it is Friedman has to say, because they trust him.

Details: Friedman proves very specific numbers that prove his point.  He includes that children who have parents who read to them score 14 points higher on their PISA tests.  That seems like quite a significant chunk to the audience.  Though we have no scale by which to measure how much 14 points really is, that number seems significant in its own right.  It gives clout to the author's point.  Though we know nothing about the study except what Friedman tells us, the fact that he has any sort of physical data makes us believe what he tells us.

Syntax:  Friedman uses rhetorical questions such as "How do we know?" to make his readers really THINK about what he is saying.  It helps to involve the reader, in the author's argument, making the audience really feel as if it is a part of the article.  When Friedman makes a suggestion, the reader almost feels as if he came up with the idea himself.

Overall, Friedman is very successful in conveying meaning.  He establishes a matter of fact, competent tone, and weaves the reader into his argument.  All of this helps him to convince us that parents are just as important, if not more so, as teachers in a child's education.

1 comment:

  1. This is not really relevant, but my family discussed Friedman over our Thanksgiving dinner.

    The main idea that you are trying to prove is clear and concise, and all your examples accurately support your argument. It might help your effectiveness if you expanded a little bit more on each literary technique that you identify, since you only have one example for details and syntax. You do a great job of supporting the examples you do identify, though! This was interesting, well written, and to the point.

    ReplyDelete