Ochoa 1

Ulisses Ochoa

English 115

Prof. Beadle

Dec. 4, 2019

Project Space Final

Author Graham Hill’s stance and experience with the study of happiness has allowed him

to be the most effective writer out of all three sources because of his knowledge with wealth

himself. The three authors, Graham Hill, Sonja Lyubomirsky, and David Brooks all have written

a similar piece of writing based around the topic of happiness. Hill has a degree in architecture

and industrial design; Lyubomirsky holds a Ph.D. in psychology; and Brooks obtained a B.A. in

History. Each author came from completely different backgrounds and created their own writing

pieces based around a similar topic about happiness. However, Hill has hands-on experience

with wealth which ultimately allows him to have an advantage over the other two authors, as

both Lyubomirsky and Brooks did not have a background of creating their own companies and

encountering such wealth at a young age. Furthermore, Hill not only demonstrates ethos through

credibility, he also effectively uses emotion and logic in his writing that diminishes the other two

authors. All three rhetoric devices, ethos, logos, and pathos are all demonstrated in each article,

but Hill has proven as the author that will grasp a bigger audience because of his personal

experience and the advice that he shares with the world, compared to the other two authors,

which lack the empowerment of Hill’s essay.

 Ochoa 2

In Hill’s article, he starts off by introducing the audience about his luck with wealth,

which is his way of building his own credibility, ethos. Illustrating that material things are not

what makes a person happy, instead they do the complete opposite as stated by Hill, “The things

I consumed ended up consuming me” (Hill 308). Even though the wealth may have brought him

happiness at first, later it became more of a burden of having to maintain so many things all at

once. It became too overwhelming. Eventually he decided to get rid of everything and start living

a simpler life. Hill’s hands on experience with wealth has granted him the ability to write about

the topic of happiness. He obtained his wealth through developing a company called Sitewerks

and later selling it for an immense profit. Whereas, in Lyubomirsky’s article, she established her

ethos by involving case studies since she is a psychologist, which makes sense for her to make

her claim that way as she is most likely often using data throughout her career working as a

psychologist. Even though case studies are accurate and are scientifically true, it does not have

the same connection with the audience as Hill’s writing does, simply because she is forcing the

reader to mainly read studies that proves her point. The reason why Lyubomirsky’s essay is not

effective as Hill’s is because the multiple biographies she has written about a group of people

that he has studied, which leads readers into the perspective of a psychologist that is analyzing

the backgrounds of different individuals. For the general audience, they are not looking to read

such an abundance of different backgrounds. Instead, she should have condensed the individuals

history. Brooks’ article is a different story though, as he uses a lot of references to show the

audience that he has done his own research that required lots of reading, but the problem with

that is the average person will not know who Paul Tillich or Viktor Frankl is. Making Hill a lot

better with making the audience less puzzled and more understanding towards those who are less

knowledgeable about certain theologians and psychotherapists.

 Ochoa 3

When it comes to logic, Hill pulls it off the best by giving the audience a brief amount of

information to support his argument. He compared the size of houses from 1950 to 2011 in order

to show the jump in square footage over the years proving that Americans specifically like to

have big properties because they think it will make them happy, which goes back to his

introduction claiming that the big properties and material things are not going to make a person

happy after a certain amount of time. He also provides a small piece of evidence, articulating that

Americans spend a lot of money keeping unnecessary things: “$22 billion personal storage

industry” (Hill 310). Furthermore, he brings up a study by a psychologist named Galen V, a

study showing that the amount of purchases have been increasing since the 1950s, but the level

of happiness has dramatically changed to a flat line. This statement allows him to support his

claim a bit more. The pulling of multiple sources that are brief yet effective is what Hill strives

for and has made him successful in this piece of writing. It is true that Lyubomirsky also has case

studies involved, but her whole claim is based around just the studies themselves. She is

supporting her claim by mainly using logos. The use of logos in Lyubomirsky’s essay loses the

audience since it is something that is not a short read and must be read through in order to argue

her main point. The majority of the general public will not be interested in reading such stretched

out content. Therefore, Hill’s use of logos is better implemented since is short and straight to the

point. At the same time, Brooks took the approach of using statistics in his writing. He claims

that “more than 1,000 books were released on Amazon” (Brooks 284) based about happiness.

Concluding that people fantasize happiness and that it is found by first going through the mental

and physical pain of suffering. This piece of evidence that Brooks used is good, but Hill’s use of

the housing statistic is more specific and better to picture in mind versus a book topic exploding
 Ochoa 4

in numbers online since seeing something trending spontaneously is not something that is new in

the current age of technology.

In Lyubomirsky’s article, pathos is not really illustrated anywhere. She is simply using

the studies and summarizing the evidence that was found. In one of the three rhetoric devices,

pathos is very important as it allows the reader to become more emotionally involved and

intrigued with the author, in which Lyubomirsky seems to lack in her writing. Brooks used very

minimal pathos, but he does get some credit using diction such as “we” that was found only once

at the very beginning. Although Brooks uses more conversational syntax like Hill does, he lacks

the effort of being able to stay in touch with his audience as he goes towards simple logical

thinking when approaching the ending of his article, whereas Hill is able to come to the

realization that his limitless money spending was getting out of hand and reveals the audience his

conflict as stated, “And really, a personal shopper? Who had I become?” This small change in

questioning himself better captures and relates to the audience since people in general always

question themselves, furthermore their own actions. On the other hand, in Hill’s writing, he

shows more emotion, which makes the audience care about the author and captures them to read

further along. He reveals that the cheap products that the public purchases are “often exploitive

overseas labor and lax environmental regulations” (Hill 310). This shows that he cares about the

planet and desires people to be knowledgeable of the endangerment behind the products that are

bought on the daily basis while simultaneously encouraging his audience to throw away the

miscellaneous items that they may have in their homes. Having the basic morality of caring

about the planet, while simultaneously being wealthy is very interesting and shows a lot of

compassion in which the audience can identify. Although his article is outdated, the problem
 Ochoa 5

with cheap products continues to persist to this day and is more drastic to the environment than

ever before.

Overall, all three articles are informative, but Hill goes more beyond with his writing than

Brooks and Lyubomirksy. Hill uses the three rhetoric strategies by taking a different approach

throughout his article. He connects with the audience on a more personal level by articulating

about how the money he gained did not really make his happiness level go up as he originally

intended. He even gets more personal stating that his wife left him, which is not something every

author would wish to talk about with their readers. Then he ends with how his life changed by

consuming less and is now at his happiest state of mind. In addition, Hill has successfully

captured the attention of readers by his skills in writing, in which it connects more on a deeper

level and even encourages others to get rid of the excessive amount of belongings in their homes.

Lyubomirsky brings interesting case studies that can be intriguing but is mainly towards those

who like getting involved with reading actual research. Brooks’ writing tends to go overboard

with the references he used and therefore loses the readers’ attention, but he brings an interesting

perspective in sharing his take on how to find happiness. However, Hill is easier to understand

for the average person. In addition, it allows him to reach a much more of a broad audience since

the education level to read his piece of writing is much lower than the other two authors. He

connects very deeply with the reader interestingly even though he does not need as much

information involved compared to Lyubomirsky. Thus, being the most effective out of all the

three authors when compared on the topic of happiness.

 Ochoa 6

Works Cited
Brooks, David. “What Suffering Does.” Pursuing Happiness, edited by Matthew Parfitt and

Dawn Skonczewski, Bedford St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 284-287.

Hill, Graham. “Living with Less. A Lot Less.” Pursuing Happiness, edited by Matthew Parfitt

and Dawn Skonczewski, Bedford St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 308-313.

Lyubomirsky, Sonja. “How Happy Are You and Why?” Pursuing Happiness, edited by Matthew

Parfitt and Dawn Skonczewski, Bedford St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 179-197.