Leonard Fridman is addressing the type of audience who reads The New York Times in

1990: educated, generally upper class citizens with the luxury of having time and opportunity to
enhance their intellectual boundaries by reading a newspaper. In this decade, celebrities like
Miley Cyrus, traumatic events such as 9/11, and technological advances like the iPhone were not
present, therefore altering the audiences perception of Fridmans writing. Through the use of
logical fallacies and tone, as well as the intentional lack of a counterargument, he develops an
argument primarily based on emotion with an appeal to pathos.
Fridman has a strong use of evidence, ranging in variety and source, that bolsters his
argument and claim that [t]here is something very wrong with the system of values in
[American] society because of our judgmental social climate. However, he does not support and
elaborate on such evidence with argumentative thoroughness, thus leaving great opportunity for
logical fallacies to deconstruct the potentially effective system of rhetoric he had built. A
primary example of the gaps in his piece is the overwhelming presence of over-generalization. In
his second paragraph, Fridman introduces the circumstances a socially restricted environment
found at Harvard University, and then ends his section with an assertion that is lacking in
support: the ostracizing of nerds and idolizing of athletes has no present or explicitly explained
correlation to the fact that most student try to keep up their grades but only a few pursue
knowledge as a top priority. Instead of assuming that nerds become social outcasts, using
a qualifier to acknowledge the opposite truth in his statement would offer a more concrete basis
for argument. Additionally, the ironic stereotypical presentation of evidence such as typical
[American parents] are ashamed of their daughter studying mathematics affords more support
for a claim against his own way of thinking than against his ideological opponent of ostracizing.
He declaratively states that nerds and geeks must stop being ashamed of who they are yet fails
in offering factual evidence of such an emotional conflict and experience of social distress.
Fridman appeals to the emotion in his audience by implicating words such as ashamed,
conformed, and ostracized to capture attention and open opportunity for empathetic
perception as well as additionally employing persuasive logical fallacies.
The efficacy of his fallacies can be analyzed by looking at the tone of his writing.
Leonard Fridman spaces these gaps in his argument evenly throughout the paper so as to not
evoke suspicion by the reader. By surrounding the fallacies with rhetorical structures of varying
sentence length and diction, he creates a setting for a persuasive tone to additionally bolster his
claim. For example, preceding the statement that nerds are ashamed at their identities, he writes,
Enough is enough, following a paragraph comprised of the persuasive yet ultimately erroneous
notion in the form of a syllogism that nerds and athletes are on opposite spectrums in the realm
of social acceptance. The brevity of this statement, Enough is enough, creates a tone of disgust
and condescension that invites the reader to ask, What is enough? and pursue their curiosity by
following the argument. Also, beginning his piece, he appeals to emotion by stating primarily
that there is something very wrong and successfully capturing attention and drawing it to the
manufactured notion that there is a significant urgency to the issue he is about to explore. More
complex sentences like those found in lines 14-17, 23-27, and 47-52 use length to draw focus
away form the detailed and unexplained content of the statement and towards the melodic
continuance of a simple point. Fridmans combination of two-word phrases such as pursuing
knowledge, our culture, and physical prowess entwine with the intent of appealing to
emotion as they act as simple identifiers of life aspects to which a majority of The New York
Times readers would be able to relate.
Finally, the lack of a counter argument shows weakness in the effectiveness of Fridmans
claim. He addresses once the concept of counterargument as he writes, Although most students
try to keep up their grades, but ultimately asserts his argument at the end of the paragraph with
an over-generalization. Tone and fallacy act as the two supporting functions of his appeal to the
motion of readers being presented with the concepts of intellectuality and its social credit and
perception. Addressing a group ofin majorityeducated status, offering the idea that nerd
may be a fitful and purposeful label for the academically inclined probably would harm his
readers rather than attract their perceptual trust. However, addressing the opposition of his
argument would afford his tone with more valid confidence and factual validity. Enhancing his
argumentative prowess quite possibly towards the end of his piece creates strength and finite
structure to his literature. Instead, Fridman offers questions and focuses on tone and how he is
influencing emotions as he concludes, which in effect is persuasive, but ultimately unstable.