Dancing Makes You Smarter: Rhetorical Analysis
By: DeVon Ballenger
In the article “Use it or Lose It: Dancing Makes You Smarter” by Richard Powers, the author brings out good points but goes about presenting them in the wrong way. Personally, I support the idea of dance being a way to support higher and more efficient learning, but to me this article doesn’t prove that statement to me. I don’t support presenting wholesome information in an incorrect fashion. A lot of the author’s arguments are based on general statements that comparably make sense to other, non related, issues that are mistaken to be similar. My issue is with the fallacies in the techniques used to persuade this wholesome information.
The first thing that stuck out to me was how Powers jumped to an unjustified conclusion in the beginning of the article. In the second paragraph it states “Frequent dancing apparently makes us smarter” (Use It or Lose It Richard Powers 2011). This technique was used to make a bold, eye catching, topic that is easily remembered. Even though this is the starting point in bringing out the main idea, this is a prime example of how people, such as salesman, throw things out there to make sure you listen.
The second thing I found wrong was the misuse of statistics that were presented in the seventh paragraph. In this diagram, it presents the percentage of how effective reading, bicycling, crossword puzzles, golf and dancing frequently in preventing dementia. For starters, percentages should add up to be 100 and it shows values that add up to be 158. Also the statement, “the only physical activity to offer protection against dementia was frequent dancing,” (Use It or Lose It Richard Powers 2011) in the paragraph before contradicts the whole diagram.
The third pitfall I noticed was the author ignored a question he mentioned. Under the sub heading “Why Dancing” he bring us up the debate of why dancing is a better mental health aid then other activities, Powers goes off in a tangeant about excersizing congnitive processes, not giving a reason why a certain activity outweighs another.
The fourth fallacy I came across was the false analogy this article gave me. Under the “Who benefits more, men or women?” subheading, Powers is completely off topic. A subheading is supposed to summarize the paragraph in a few words for organization and an easy refference. The author starts talking about split-second decision making in social partner dancing.
The fifth fallacy I came across was how the author used circular reasoning to prove his point. Under the subheading “What kind of dancing?” there is another diagram of the study of how certain activities prevent dementia. The beginning of this passage describes how golf uses “rapid-fire decision making” while playing in your younger years, but in your older years it’s all about “refining your technique." (Use It or Lose It Richard Powers 2011). Even though this is a good example of what not to do to prevent dementia, it does not fit under the subheading, nor the article.
Being a fellow dancer myself, I applaud Richard Powers for advocating that dancing is a wonderful way to keep your mind sharp but, I don’t agree with the methods he used to present the information he gathered. A topic, such as this one needs to be presented with flawless effort and needs not to have so many fallacies that can be easily pointed out. The intentions were good, be the actuall actions weren’t sucessful.
You can find this article at (http://socialdance.stanford.edu/syllabi/smarter.htm)
By: DeVon Ballenger
In the article “Use it or Lose It: Dancing Makes You Smarter” by Richard Powers, the author brings out good points but goes about presenting them in the wrong way. Personally, I support the idea of dance being a way to support higher and more efficient learning, but to me this article doesn’t prove that statement to me. I don’t support presenting wholesome information in an incorrect fashion. A lot of the author’s arguments are based on general statements that comparably make sense to other, non related, issues that are mistaken to be similar. My issue is with the fallacies in the techniques used to persuade this wholesome information.
The first thing that stuck out to me was how Powers jumped to an unjustified conclusion in the beginning of the article. In the second paragraph it states “Frequent dancing apparently makes us smarter” (Use It or Lose It Richard Powers 2011). This technique was used to make a bold, eye catching, topic that is easily remembered. Even though this is the starting point in bringing out the main idea, this is a prime example of how people, such as salesman, throw things out there to make sure you listen.
The second thing I found wrong was the misuse of statistics that were presented in the seventh paragraph. In this diagram, it presents the percentage of how effective reading, bicycling, crossword puzzles, golf and dancing frequently in preventing dementia. For starters, percentages should add up to be 100 and it shows values that add up to be 158. Also the statement, “the only physical activity to offer protection against dementia was frequent dancing,” (Use It or Lose It Richard Powers 2011) in the paragraph before contradicts the whole diagram.
The third pitfall I noticed was the author ignored a question he mentioned. Under the sub heading “Why Dancing” he bring us up the debate of why dancing is a better mental health aid then other activities, Powers goes off in a tangeant about excersizing congnitive processes, not giving a reason why a certain activity outweighs another.
The fourth fallacy I came across was the false analogy this article gave me. Under the “Who benefits more, men or women?” subheading, Powers is completely off topic. A subheading is supposed to summarize the paragraph in a few words for organization and an easy refference. The author starts talking about split-second decision making in social partner dancing.
The fifth fallacy I came across was how the author used circular reasoning to prove his point. Under the subheading “What kind of dancing?” there is another diagram of the study of how certain activities prevent dementia. The beginning of this passage describes how golf uses “rapid-fire decision making” while playing in your younger years, but in your older years it’s all about “refining your technique." (Use It or Lose It Richard Powers 2011). Even though this is a good example of what not to do to prevent dementia, it does not fit under the subheading, nor the article.
Being a fellow dancer myself, I applaud Richard Powers for advocating that dancing is a wonderful way to keep your mind sharp but, I don’t agree with the methods he used to present the information he gathered. A topic, such as this one needs to be presented with flawless effort and needs not to have so many fallacies that can be easily pointed out. The intentions were good, be the actuall actions weren’t sucessful.
You can find this article at (http://socialdance.stanford.edu/syllabi/smarter.htm)