Whippman and Graves provides opposing viewpoints on the pursuit of happiness.Whippman (2017) asserts that “happiness depends on other people” (Para. 12)while Graves (2017) argues that happiness is attained by “letting your valuesguide your actions” (Para.
2). I am more persuaded by Graves’ well-supported andcredible argument that happiness can be obtained through self-contemplation. Graves is more persuasive than Whippman because she appearsto be more logical based on the structure of her argument. Also, Graves’argument is further strengthened by the support of quality sources. By citing professionalopinions on happiness by Susan David, a psychologist from Harvard, lendsexpertise and credibility to the article.
Evidently mentioned in Graves’ (2016)article, she proposed “pursuing activities that dovetail your values” (Para.2). This was in agreement to what Susan David mentioned after that” lettingyour values guide your action, can lead to happiness” (Graves, 2016, Para. 2). Thisaction of reasserting would appeal to readers’ logic and reasoning and helps tojustify the arguments made by Graves. In contrast, Whippman’s claims areambiguous.
The research he references simply states “people who study” (Para.6), “wide body of research” (Para. 11) and “study after study” (Para. 13).
Furthermore, Whippman (2016) often uses sweeping statements such as “many Americans”(Para. 6), “Americans in general” (Para, 8) and “people across the board”(Para. 14). Without specific supporting evidence, the article is merely anopinion piece without credible arguments. This speculative nature therefore raisesdoubts surrounding his method of pursuing happiness. Thus, Graves’ frame ofargument is more objective as compared to Whippman, making her article morepersuasive. In addition, Whippman’s logical flow of arguments is arguable. Initially,Whippman (2017) mentions about how the research is “full of anomalies andcontradictions” (Para.
12). Yet in the following paragraph, Whippman (2017) uses studiesGTJS1 to validate “goodsocial relationships are the strongest, most consistent predictor there is of ahappy life” (Para. 13). Such a contradiction results in the lack of clarity andweaken the persuasiveness of the article. Graves use of a call-to-action increases encourages readers to reflect andincreases her persuasivenessGTJS2 .
With question prompts such as “Whatrelationships do I build? What do I want my life to be about?” (Para. 2), Gravespropelsreaders to immediate actionGTJS3 and consider the moralsGTJS4 that could aid inthe attainment of happiness. Readers arecompelled to ponder about the questions which appeals to their empathy andlogic. As a result, this method enhances the overall persuasiveness of thearticle.GTJS5 xxx Moreover, Whippman uses a personal anecdote which creates the impressionthat using a “happiness”(Para.
1) application GTJS6 would invokenegative emotions. Whippman would “snarl bitterly” (Para. 2) when the applicationsent a message of “positive affirmation” (Para. 2). The anecdote is relatable to readersGTJS7 , thereby creatinga hook effect; however, anecdotes create cognitive bias by overestimating theoccurrence of certain events. Therefore, unassuming readers may be persuaded atface value but fail to realise that Whippman’s arguments can be dismissed onthe grounds of faulty generalisation.
Nevertheless, both articles are pragmaticGTJS8 for Americans in the pursuit of happiness. Although eachauthor argues their own take on the American pursuit of happiness, the validationof credible sources lends more weight to Graves’ position. It persuasivelyasserts that xxxGTJS9 , and though imperfect, is more convincing than Whippman.
Bibliography:1. Graves, G. (2017, June 6). The secret to deeper happiness is simpler than you might think. Health. Retrieved fromhttp://www.
health.com/mind-body/find-deeper-happiness2. Whippman, R. (2017, October 27).
Health is other people. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/opinion/sunday/happiness-is-other-people.html