Download Critique of Freakonomics: Challenging Some Claims - Prof. M. Richardson and more Papers Grammar and Composition in PDF only on Docsity! English 104 1 December 2008 Critical Response Journal # 6 Dubner and Levitt make many claims in Freakonomics. Some of those claims I agree with completely, yet there are some claims that I believe Dubner and Levitt have completely wrong. In chapter three, they state that all drug dealers live at home with their moms. Now don’t get me wrong, by the way the argument is made I can see where Levitt and Dubner are coming from. But, I think that it is unfair to say that ALL drug dealers live with their mothers. In the drug world only the big shots at the top of the pyramid make the big money. A comparison is made relating the drug business to McDonalds. “Perhaps none more so then McDonalds. In fact, is you were to hold a McDonald’s organizational chart and a Black Disciples organizational chart side by side, you could hardly tell the difference.” (89) The warrant for this claim is basically saying until a dealer gets lucky or is in fact good enough at working the system to make it to the top, they live in poverty. This poverty is felt by a great majority of the drug gang thus one can infer why a majority of drug dealers live in the projects. They are unfortunately unable to afford to live elsewhere. This much I understand but I find it hard to believe that ALL drug dealers is an exaggeration. Another claim made in the expanded and revised edition of Freakonomics published in 2006, Levitt and Dubner state that in running for political office “money hardly matters at all” (9) in being victorious in the election and evidence shows that it is in fact only a fraction of what it takes to win. In the end, the candidate and what he stands for is the deciding factor. Personally, I don’t see how anyone can disagree but 2 even for those who do, the facts prove otherwise. There are many examples in which the candidate spending the most money in election loses in the end. In 2002, Tony Sanchez outspend Governor Rick Perry almost three to one but in the end, lost the election for Texas governor. It is as simple as that, money cannot always by ones victory in political election. In chapter two of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner state “we all respond to incentives, negative and positive, from the outset of life.” (16) “An incentive is a bullet, a lever, a key: an often a tiny object with astonishing power to change a situation.” (16) Again, I don’t see how anyone could believe otherwise. An incentive is a benefit or consideration, financial or not, given to induce specific action. (Webster) Someone that opposes this claim may say something like, “Some things are done out of the goodness of their heart, or done for someone else.” Even then, incentives are involved. If you are doing a deed for someone else, ones incentive could be their expectation to get something in return whether it’s a favor or just to get into the others good graces. Say that you do something for someone else without expecting something in return; your incentives then are the feelings or benefits you hope the other receives because of your acts. Incentives are something that cannot be avoided in everyday life by anyone, no matter what. In the chapter called, “Where have all the criminals gone?” Levitt and Dubner show why many explanations are incorrect, but some of the fallacies in their reasoning as to why abortion is the cause I don’t agree with. They believe that “Legalizing abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.” (127) I agree that with less people in the country there is less of a chance of crime, but that is not what Levitt and Dubner are implying. They believe that
