The Sara Bullock Trade
The Sandra Bullock Trade
David Brooks wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times: “The Sandra Bullock Trade” (3.30.2010).
David Brooks has a smooth way to engage us in the text, he uses a lot of thought-provoking rhetorical questions. These questions are a nice way to make sure he gets the reader’s attention, and to force the reader to think about what he writes about. After Brooks has asked questions, he gives us much information about the subject this makes us wonder even further about the subject.
“So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?” Here he uses two rhetorical questions, this has an effect on the reader, it makes the reader think, and it awakens the reader’s thoughts. The questions are also straight out said, he certainly doesn’t hide anything, and they are if not a bit provocative.
Further down in the text Brooks uses the exact same strategy. He asks rhetorical questions and afterwards gives us information’s about the subject. By giving us all that information about the subject, Brooks helps the readers think in a bigger perspective. Brooks’ strategy here is simply to involve the readers in his thoughts but also at the same time inform us about “The Sandra Bullock Trade”.
Brooks refers to both studies and highly qualified people’s opinions to make his statements more trustworthy. The fact that he does this increases the readers’ trust in Brooks, and could maybe result in the readers thinking more serious about the subject. Brooks introduces the readers for the problem between economics and happiness, and how Brooks thinks it affects people, the choice between good economics and being happy. Sandra Bullock got an academy award for best actress and then her husband shows to be a jerk, this might’ve been caused by Sandra spending too much time on her actress career.
David Brooks wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times: “The Sandra Bullock Trade” (3.30.2010).
David Brooks has a smooth way to engage us in the text, he uses a lot of thought-provoking rhetorical questions. These questions are a nice way to make sure he gets the reader’s attention, and to force the reader to think about what he writes about. After Brooks has asked questions, he gives us much information about the subject this makes us wonder even further about the subject.
“So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?” Here he uses two rhetorical questions, this has an effect on the reader, it makes the reader think, and it awakens the reader’s thoughts. The questions are also straight out said, he certainly doesn’t hide anything, and they are if not a bit provocative.
Further down in the text Brooks uses the exact same strategy. He asks rhetorical questions and afterwards gives us information’s about the subject. By giving us all that information about the subject, Brooks helps the readers think in a bigger perspective. Brooks’ strategy here is simply to involve the readers in his thoughts but also at the same time inform us about “The Sandra Bullock Trade”.
Brooks refers to both studies and highly qualified people’s opinions to make his statements more trustworthy. The fact that he does this increases the readers’ trust in Brooks, and could maybe result in the readers thinking more serious about the subject. Brooks introduces the readers for the problem between economics and happiness, and how Brooks thinks it affects people, the choice between good economics and being happy. Sandra Bullock got an academy award for best actress and then her husband shows to be a jerk, this might’ve been caused by Sandra spending too much time on her actress career.