Essay About Freakonomics

It is evident from the tone of the writers in the book that they are not able to stress on their own pointer.Claiming that parents cannot yield better future of the children just through actions is a very biased view.

Tags: Teaching The Five Paragraph Essay StructureDt Gcse Coursework SpecificationAbortion Ancient Classical Classical Duckworth Duckworth Essay Essay In WorldCritical Thinking DefinedPrice Essay PicturesquePersuasive Essay Book ReportWriting An English PaperHelp Writing College Scholarship EssayThe Geography Of The Imagination Forty EssaysWriting A Conclusion To An Essay

The claim that has been extracted for the focus states that parenting cannot alone predict the future of a child and that the genes of parents can best predict the future. The economists have claimed that the genes of parents can help in predicting the future of children.

The authors have rejected the idea that parenting alone can do wonders in predicting intelligent future of children by noting some of the examples in the course of the chapter of their book (Di Nardo, Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling).

The biased claim by the author has been backed up by another statement that children can grow intelligent if their parents are intelligent.

The authors have provided several examples from the context of parenting process.

Ultimately, I was left wondering if perhaps it would have been better if Levitt and Dubner had teamed with a single documentary filmmaker to pursue an entirely new case file.

I would have settled for a well-documented hidden side of one thing than a scattershot exploration of the hidden side of everything.These choices seem simple when seen on paper, however the once simple decision becomes quite the opposite when an alternate motive poisons the minds of unsuspecting civilians.Freakonomics illustrates the harsh reality that once people are given a choice, no matter how wrong it may seem; when their neck is on the line, the majority of civilians will do what it takes to benefit themselves.Freakonomics is a book that talks about life long processes that cannot at all be considered as quantifiable.The book is irrelevant and humorous for people who are being targeted by the author. Dubner suggests that parenting have become the most widely talked about issue in the world today but in no way parenting can be able to guarantee a smart and intelligent future of a child.The film tries to put forward a thesis statement about the importance of incentives but it doesn’t look like all the filmmakers got the memo.While the value of incentives is seen in why sumo wrestlers cheat (Gibney’s segment) and why high school students are willing to get higher grades in exchange for cash prizes (Ewing and Grady’s segment), it’s difficult to see how incentives are a factor in why black names are different from white names (Spurlock’s segment) or why the legalization of abortion reduced the crime rate in the 1990s (Jarecki’s segment).The gene of parents has been considered by the authors of Freakonomics as the basis of best prediction of children future.But it shall also be noted that the child’s future can be made better if parents appoint the right technique.But they will never stop their children to go for spending time at friend’s house with a swimming pool in the backyard (Di Nardo).The authors have thus claimed that parents themselves face a lot of turmoil due to which they can not nurture their kids to the extent where they could become intelligent in future.