Amy Gao Sociologist Leonid Fridman makes the argument that as a society, America doesnt value the intellect

and degrades those who show academic prowess. He develops his argument using a variety of methods. First, he uses a definition from Websters New World Dictionary. This is an appeal to ethos since the definition comes from a very reliable source. It strengthens his argument by clearly showing the negative connotation associated with the word geek which is described as a person who bites off the heads of live chickens. synonymous to being a freak. However, Fridmans argument is very one-dimensional in asserting that intellectuals are only seen in a negative way in America. He doesnt acknowledge any possible counterargument or allow for any gray area. The essay comes off as being very black and white. Fridman says that we are a society that only has derogatory terms like nerd and geek for the intellectually curious and academically serious. He suggests that all nerds fit into the stereotype of having thick glasses and being ostracized. I know for a fact that this is not true. There are plenty of people who are smart, athletic, and social at the same time. In its absolutism, the essays argument falls short. In his third paragraph, Fridman chooses to use Harvard as an example. This is ironic because Harvard is known to be the most intellectual of places. Yet Fridman points out that even there, many students are ashamed to admit how much they study. By using Harvard, Fridman conveys a sense that nowhere in America are intellectuals safe from being ostracized and degraded. However, if he had supported his claims with another authority, it would have been He even suggests that being a geek is

stronger. He presents a very contestable idea that, while effective in providing a shock factor, may also not be very easily believable. He gives a call to action, saying that it is time to fight the persecutors that haunt the smart kedds. The audience is asked to actually do something about it. To strengthen his call to action, Fridman compares America to other countries in East Asia. He appeals to logos and the competitive spirit in his audience. Not only this, but he also inspires some fear. He asks the rhetorical question: How long can America remain a world-class power if we constantly emphasize social skills and physical prowess over academic achievement and intellectual ability? He predicts that America will fall from power if we leave the problem unsolved. This creates fear and appeals to pathos. Through these methods, Fridman creates a persuasive argument although containing a few fallacies.