Happiness Is Other People Analysis
Happiness is something that everyone desires, however, everyone has a different perspective on what it is and how to find it. For many, happiness is elusive. These two articles, “Happiness is Other People” by Ruth Whippman for The New York Times and “The Secret to Deeper Happiness Is Simpler Than You Might Think” by Ginny Graves for Health, proposes two different paths to find happiness. Graves (2017) claims that happiness resides in the inner-self while Whippman (2017) disagrees and, instead, advocates pursuing happiness from healthy relationships. Both authors are targeting an unhappy audience who is seeking advice and, between the two, Whippman makes a more compelling and persuasive argument for her claim.
Whippman’s writing connects with …show more content…
Graves writes with an informal style that directly addresses the audience throughout and, coupled with her light-hearted tone, might come off as nonchalant to some audience when she attributes their unhappiness to their thoughts and behaviours with statements such as “So cut back on quick thrills” (Graves, 2017, para. 6) and “You just have to know where to look” (para. 1). This style of writing might offend or alienate her audience. Worse, they might reproach themselves further and thus make themselves feel unhappier. Whippman (2017), instead, writes in a formal style with a personal touch, achieved with minimal and appropriate uses of ‘you’ and ‘we’. This approach is more persuasive because it presents the article as a credible opinion piece and allows the audience to consider her points and decide for …show more content…
However, when compared with Whippman, Graves’ usage of these evidence diminishes her credibility. Whippman (2017) substantiates her stance by providing sufficient evidence and builds on it through logical analysis. Whippman meets the standards of what is expected from a logical argument. However, Graves’ (2017), in contrast, cites too many experts and quotes many sentences from them. When their opinions are removed from the article, there is very little content left in terms of Graves’s own explanation and elaboration suggesting that there is a lack of logical analysis of the evidence. This might give the impression that she is parroting or even plagiarising other
Whippman’s writing connects with …show more content…
Graves writes with an informal style that directly addresses the audience throughout and, coupled with her light-hearted tone, might come off as nonchalant to some audience when she attributes their unhappiness to their thoughts and behaviours with statements such as “So cut back on quick thrills” (Graves, 2017, para. 6) and “You just have to know where to look” (para. 1). This style of writing might offend or alienate her audience. Worse, they might reproach themselves further and thus make themselves feel unhappier. Whippman (2017), instead, writes in a formal style with a personal touch, achieved with minimal and appropriate uses of ‘you’ and ‘we’. This approach is more persuasive because it presents the article as a credible opinion piece and allows the audience to consider her points and decide for …show more content…
However, when compared with Whippman, Graves’ usage of these evidence diminishes her credibility. Whippman (2017) substantiates her stance by providing sufficient evidence and builds on it through logical analysis. Whippman meets the standards of what is expected from a logical argument. However, Graves’ (2017), in contrast, cites too many experts and quotes many sentences from them. When their opinions are removed from the article, there is very little content left in terms of Graves’s own explanation and elaboration suggesting that there is a lack of logical analysis of the evidence. This might give the impression that she is parroting or even plagiarising other