At first we are being asked as the reader. what we prefer. Wealth or felicity. David Brooks uses the actress Sandra Bullock as an illustration of the quandary. Sandra Bullock won an Academy Award for best actress. but so a intelligence study came and claimed that her hubby is a rip offing dork.
That puts things in another position. because who does non desire to be recognized for your work. but is that better than fring your love. David points out that winning this Award is one of the best things that can go on to an actor/actress ; non merely because of the recognition and the money. but it has been proved that Award victors live longer than people who merely have been nominated. After that David is really clear with his sentiment on this state of affairs.
If you need to believe about the inquiry. what you want to take. between the hubby or the Award. you must be crazy in his eyes. He says that the relationship between income and felicity is slippery. If you are hapless and you earn a batch of money you become happy. Let us state that you are in the middle-class and your income additions. That will non hold the same consequence as if you go from hapless excessively normal. because you have lived with such a little sum of money you learn to appreciate even a little sum of money ; compared to a middle-class individual who wins the lottery. because it does non alter his life majorly.
2. How does David Brooks prosecute the reader in text 1?
David is really good at prosecuting the reader. He uses an illustration from existent life and involves the reader by inquiring inquiries most of the clip. He makes the reader think about what we merely read by inquiring inquiries about the readers sentiment. He is a really distinguished newsman for the New York Times. examined the relationship between wealth and felicity in his article “The Sandra Bullock Trade” : a apparently simple – about cliche – construct.
He is nevertheless able to pull the reader in by the usage of 2 simple literary techniques. Chiefly. Brooks captures the readers’ attending by his rubric and his presentation paragraph. Many newspapers readers make snap judgements about whether they should or they should non read an article or non by merely looking at the rubric. It was non a error that Brooks used Sandra Bullock as his illustration. She is a celebrated. beautiful. and successful actress whose general popularity will do his article – non merely appealing – but relate able to his audience. Another technique that Brooks utilizes is his pick of linguistic communication. It is really conversational and apprehensible.
By utilizing phrases like “nothing to sneeze at” alternatively of words like “insignificant” the writer makes his text more relate able to his readers – as if they are talking with a friend. If they are more likely to understand his significance and his lively tone so they will more likely to go on to read. The undertaking of a newspapers author is different than an writers undertaking. Their occupation is to entice the reader in and to maintain them interested for a short sum of clip the reader will pass on each article. Brooks does this effortlessly by utilizing simple and accessible vocabulary and comfy and utilizing a relate able sketch to ab initio catch his readers’ attending.
3. Based on the sentiments voiced in texts 2 and 3. discuss whether passing money makes people happy.
In text 2 Stephanie Rosenbloom discuss with herself if it is possible to purchase felicity and if “yes” so would it be an experience or merely a simple piece off vesture. It is a longer permanent felicity if you buy a holiday. than a couch. That is the thought. Populating in the universe we live in now. we need these small things that make our mundane life a small better. Of class a holiday is good because it is something you will non bury that easy and you will care for the memories for the remainder of your life. compared to a simple sofa that might merely last 5 old ages. About every clip you spend money it will do you happy.
You do non purchase something that does non do you happy. The research there has been made Tells us that greater wealth implies greater felicity merely at rather low degrees of income. But when the research workers have asked people about their felicity they have merely been asked how satisfied they are with their lives. Which is a really hard inquiry. Because it is non possible by inquiring people about their life satisfaction. to mensurate what the sum of money they have in their lives play in their mundane life. in footings of felicity and satisfaction.
Spending money can do you happy. but the degree of felicity depends on what you buy and it will non be plenty. There is more to life than merely being in a good temper. Happiness can be more than that. but non merely by passing money.