Rhetorical Analysis Essay Final 1 1

Max Berryman
11/6/20
Intro to Rhetoric & Composition
Professor Ferrara
Why specializing early doesn't always mean career success – David Epstein
In the talk given by David Epstein, he discusses the many ways that specializing early
may not be the best thing for long term career success. David Epstein, a former science writer for
ESPN, had studied many prominent figures in sports and specifically the concept of the “10,000
hours rule,” (Epstein, 00:05) or the amount of time it takes for practice to make perfect. As he
observed these stories, he came to realize that these stories aren’t too different from the lives of
non-athletes. When targeting his young audience, David Epstein uses the rhetorical appeals of
ethos and pathos effectively while his use of logos has flaws in it
David is speaking to his youthful audience who may be entering the working world and
need guidance on how to find success in such a competitive time period. Although he doesn’t
specify, this information wouldn’t be pertinent to many people who are near retirement. Experts
would say specializing would give you the best chance, but after looking at so many different
stories, David thought otherwise. Epstein wanted to give the best chance to all new workers
entering the working world and what they should do for long term success. David’s main
argument in this essay is that specializing isn’t the best-case scenario for long term career
success. He references stories that support him such as Roger Federer, Vincent Van Gogh, and
Yo-Yo Ma.
David’s use of ethos was the most effective throughout this whole presentation. David
gave his credentials early on into the presentation, so listeners were able to trust him quick with
no second thoughts. David spoke with a pointed tone of voice yet managed to make it feel
informal in a good way. Whether it was using the shorthand of many words or cracking the few
jokes that he had mingled in, he was able to sound official, but attract the comfort of an informal
conversation. David also was credible because he brought up cases that may hinder his argument.
He didn’t make a blanket statement like saying all cases of specialization were wrong, instead he
discussed people like Tiger Woods, who he described as, “the poster child for this story,”
(Epstein, 00:27) and the Polgar sister’s, chess players from an early age in which two of them,
“went on to become Grandmaster chess players.” (Epstein, 00:47) The fact that he was able to
concede certain cases shows that he is not hiding anything from the audience.
David next uses pathos second most effectively. Although some decisions that helped
emotion were added, they may have hindered certain aspects of logos. This presentation on paper
doesn’t seem very exciting to listen to and had potential to lose the attention of those watching.
Luckily, David was able to bring in such a high level of name recognition that kept you waiting
for the next big surprise reveal. He didn’t throw out a number or statistic and gave his guesses on
why the numbers appeared that way, instead he gave stories of notable figures and waited until
the end of the summary to give you their name. This added a shock factor for the audience and
can be seen effectively when discussing Roger Federer specifically.
In his story, Roger started with tennis but moved away for a time because his tennis
coach of a mother said, “he wouldn't return balls normally. He did some basketball, table tennis,
swimming... handball, volleyball, soccer, badminton, skateboarding.” (Epstein, 05:30) Roger
strayed far from tennis as is seen by his extensive list of other sports he tried. Despite all of that,
he came back to the sport and clearly found success having won over 20+ major tennis
competitions. This idea excites the audience and may have them leaving feeling motivated or
reassured of the decisions in their lives. David also brings up his own stories in life that makes
one feel nostalgia. He spoke about the creator of Nintendo and managed to shift into the end
about his own Gameboy that he had as a child. He talked about starting it up after many years
and the memories that it had given him. This develops a connection between the audience and
speaker even in such a short presentation. Ethos and pathos can be seen working in tandem
David also uses logos throughout the presentation, although he is unable to verify many
sources past his own knowledge. When discussing developmental stories, he goes on to say, “We
don't hear about the research that found that Nobel laureate scientists are 22 times more likely to
have a hobby outside of work as are typical scientists.” (Epstein, 05:14) This piece is an example
of an alright piece of evidence. Although, it doesn’t have the proper name of this ‘research’, he
gives a number with the data that shows calculations were made, not simply genuine guesses.
This piece of evidence may be of use here, but other mentions of studies research, or stories that
are mentioned aren’t given a source and don’t have real statistics to put next to them.
The audience isn’t even given a rough percentage of how much more useful it is to have
two or more specialties. The only basis the audience has is that David used roughly four times
more stories that support his hypothesis as opposed to what he is arguing against. Although these
stories are flashier, they don’t give a real basis for what he is saying as many of these people in
these positions are also one in billions. This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. David
gives the example of saying something along the lines of, ‘If these wildly successful people did it
this way, then you can do the same and expect nearly the exact same results.’
Overall, David Epstein was able to give a great presentation that reinforced this idea he
was effectively conveying. Although some of the logic was shaky, especially without giving the
names of sources in the presentation himself, he was able to use the appeals well. David uses a
convincing tone and familiarity of speech mixed with emotional and nostalgic stories or
memories to compensate for his strong claim that doesn’t have much of a strong backing to it.
Works Cited
Epstein, David. “Transcript of ‘Why Specializing Early Doesn't Always Mean Career Success.’”
TED, Feb. 2020,
www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_why_specializing_early_doesn_t_always_mean_career_
success/transcript.

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Final 1 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Final 1 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Final 1 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Max Berryman

Intro to Rhetoric & Composition

can be seen effectively when discussing Roger Federer specifically.

swimming... handball, volleyball, soccer, badminton, skateboarding.” (Epstein, 05:30) Roger

You might also like