# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner, the authors of the book, engage the reader by using an example of a strange phenomena. They start with a discussion of the increasing crime rate of the 1990s and then discusses the sudden, unexpected drop in the crime rates. By beginning the book like this, the authors create a mysterious mood for the readers. It raises a question in the audience that some may want the answer to so they would continue reading the book. The situation needs a solution and this dire need smoothly transitions into them discussing how they will solve the mystery: using economics.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner utilize a simile to compare the character Norma McCorvey to a butterfly which accentuates her significant role with respects to the declining crime rate. She tried to get an abortion in the early 70s and when she failed to, she became the lead plaintiff in the Roe v Wade case. The author use the comparison not only to emphasize her role but also to convey a deeper meaning in regards to another theme: in order to understand large social issues, people must look to trivial events/people. This discussion achieves their purpose of educating the audience about social issues, specifically, the declining crime rate and how one small event can have a chain reaction and lead to greater discoveries.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner list out a chronological sequence of steps to highlight the process of what a real-estate agent does to sell one’s home. The usage of these steps accentuates how “experts” do their business which further conveys a major perspective of the book: experts can exhibit untrustworthiness and the audeicne should stay away from these types of behaviors. Even if they have the title of expert, they may not always have the best intentions when it comes to helping people and the authors do their best to warn the audience of that.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner utilize a special definition to describe the day care problem. When parents arrive late to pick their children up, economists have proposed that the centers fine parents. However, when they adopted the policy, late arrivals actually went up. The authors want to stress how incentives drive human behavior to the audience. They want to introduce how society sees incentives and then delves into examples of how incentives apply to everyday life.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner utilize the second person, directly addressing the audience in order to evoke emotion in the audience. They aim to create an understanding regarding incentives in the audience that cheating is bad and this same ideology can carry into sports. Directly addressing the reader may make them think about the issue deeply and discuss the issues with themselves. This ultimately sets up a perspective within the audience about incentives: cheating creates positives effects so people would engage in those types of behaviors.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner references the fable “The Ring of Gyges” in order to inform the audience about two different viewpoints regarding human nature. The authors describe the story of humble shepherd who discovers a ring of invisibility. Without consequences of his actions, the shepherd wore it and used it to do malicious activities. According to the authors, come critics claim that humans showcase innate honesty but this story contradicts that viewpoint. The audience has both perspectives on the issue and further builds on their understanding of the book. This goes back to the discussion of incentives and shows how people will do things that benefit themselves even at the expense of others. The authors want the audience to understand this in the context of the economic world.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner allude to the Ku Klux Clan and their activities to stress the importance of secret information in the KKK and how this concept applies to economics. The Ku Klux Clan has about 8 million members and they held meeting critiquing all kinds of people and finding ways to harass them. The authors allude to the group in order to set up an undertaking within the audience if what concepts will appear later in the book. Since this book is not a history one, the authors first desire to study the topic from an economic point of view which evokes a formal tone and not an overly moral one. Understanding all of the choices that the author makes, their main purpose is to inform the audience and make sure they have a consistent understanding throughout the book.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt And Dubner make the choice of introducing conflict within the character of Stetson Kennedy. Kennedy feared that he did not do any real damage to the Klansmen so decided to take action. The authors use his actions stemming from his conflict in order to showcase to the audience the power of secret information. Since Kennedy gets reminded of the Klan when he sees boys playing a spy game, it prompted him to leak all the information regarding the Klansmen. Many people credit him with circulating the information regarding them and shifting the public sympathy around the group. The authors ultimately want to inform and educate the audience about the power of secret information: when it becomes public, the people who controlled that information lose their power.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner make a comparison between information and a beacon, a cudgel, and an olive branch in order to accentuate the significant power of holding information to the audience. The authors discuss this idea of “information asymmetry” which is the difference between the knowledge of two opposing parties. Highlighting the importance and omnipotent abilities of holding information makes sense in the context of this situation: how one party can counter another. The authors want the audience to realize how beneficial it proves to have information when faced with an opposing party/business. The authors state that even the thought of having information can have a profound effect which further proves its potential ability to change the course of businesses. This has the effect of carrying out the book’s main purpose: to accentuate different aspects of economics and human nature and make the audience acknowledge them.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner introduce the word “conventional wisdom” to accentuate how it directly affects the audience. When economists try to answer complex questions about the world, they often go against the conventional wisdom. The authors imply that this wisdom is the enemy of truth as Galbraith did not consider it a compliment. The authors want to convey to the audience that conventional wisdom is simple and convenient but not necessarily true all the time. By introducing this definition, it gives information to the audience regarding conventional wisdom and how it could diminish success for people. This creates a leeway into the discussion regarding advertisements and how conventional wisdom plays a part in that.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner make a direct comparison between gangs and a McDonald’s franchise in order to accentuate their similarity and keep consistent the theme of the weird side of economics. Sudhir Venkatesh, an important researcher in the book delved deeper into the behaviors of gangs and came to the conclusion that it works similarly to McDonalds. The authors not only want to inform the audience about gangs but also how they operate. This goes back to the discussion of conventional wisdom in which people accept what society thinks is the norm. Venkatesh counters this wisdom by revealing that gangs do not seem so bad when one actually cracks the behind the scenes of them. The comparison undermines the negative connotation that gangs have in the reader’s head. This urges the readers to continue reading as they might obtain different perspectives from

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner introduce eight popular explanations for the falling of the crime rates in the 1990s. This goes back to the start of the book when there was strange drop in crime rates. At that moment, the readers would not have had an answer. The authors reintroduce the unexpected drop in crime rates but in different time period. The authors present these results of the crime drop in order to accentuate the entire process of finding the main cause of dropping crime rates. To engage the reader, they desire to analyze each potential explanation one by one to figure out the underlying cause of the drop in crime rates. This has the effect of engaging the audience as the authors use tables to depict the information which may require the readers to understand the process and find an answer to the problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner compare and contrast the argument regarding crime drops to a sports team. The argument states that crime rates tend to be high when imprisonment rates are high so therefore lowering the rates could lower the crime in the country. For some context, this ideology embodies the confusion with causation and correlation. The authors compare the argument to that of a sports fan in order to accentuate the flaw with the argument. Since, the sports fan notices a correlation between a sport’s team victory and the subsequent celebration. People think that celebrating before the game would increase the chances of winning. The authors compare both arguments in order to inform the audience about the flaws of this type of reasoning. This thought process obviously does not have any correlation and therefore cannot cause each other (something the audience should become familiar with ).

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner present the reader with rhetorical questions to picture the argument regarding gun laws inside their head. The authors introduce a scenario that involves the usage of guns and the morality and accessibility of them. They describe a girl out for a nighttime stroll and insert a tough guy in the picture. If either obtained a gun it would not go well for any one of them. The authors ask the reader questions, ones that they are not really supposed to answer. This has the effect of engaging the reader further delving them deeper into the situation at hand. This may contribute to a deeper understanding of the crime drop topic as it relates to the tougher gun laws. The authors have to repeatedly engage the reader as the complex topics could have the effect in which the reader loses interest.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner juxtapose names and outcomes throughout the book for the purpose of contrasting expectations with actual results. Here, the authors provide a description of the content that Molly’s parents feel with their choice but immediately contradicts it by stating that the choice was not smart. The authors want to the readers to realize that parents are not perfect and they too can make mistakes. They underscore the mistake with their choice with subsequent data. If the reader notices this contradiction to the parent’s choices, it may reveal to them that parents do not always have the right answer. The authors set up this scenario with juxtaposition to introduce the frightening things behind parenthood. The authors target specifically new parents so they do not make decisions that may look like good ones but actually could turn out bad.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner exaggerate the actions of someone in order to accentuate the impact of his actions regarding the crime rates. For some context, many criminologists predicted the crack epidemic of the 1980s would continue to cause major violence in America but it ended to actually decrease again, similar to what happened at the beginning of the book. The actions of that drug lord do not literally cause an ocean of despair but they do contribute significantly to the increasing crime rates. The readers receive information about this person so they can correlate it to the subsequent, unexpected decrease in crime rate. Showcasing the effect that Blandon had on the US to then revealing the decrease in the crime rates creates a mood curiosity within the reader. It raises a question within them about the decline even after such a monumental action.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner incorporate irony when they reveal that the factors that parents assume to be important towards good parenting do not actually affect the success of a child. This ironic presentation of the ideas serves to challenge the preconceived notions the readers have towards parenting even when the ideas parents have seem somewhat reasonable. Parents believed that school choice for children played a major part in their success but in reality it did not. In the studies in the book, students gained no academic benefit by switching schools as an important factor was their mindset. Thus, if the readers had an already set in stone idea that school choice contributed to one’s success greatly, then they could reconsider after having exposure to contrasting evidence. The authors aim to stress that the commonly held “perfect parenting” myths are largely overstated which may prompt the audience to look past them.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner define a term which interprets the results of a study relating the testing gap between white and black students. The authors measured their academic performance and compared their socioeconomic status. Defining the word “regression analysis” relates the method in which the data is observed from that study. The authors want the audience to understand the effects of using this analysis technique. The audience needs to realize however that regression cannot prove causation but it can show correlation that people can use to attempt to prove causation. Furthermore, this discussion of regression of analysis reveals a bigger problem with the white and black student testing gap. The authors delve into reasons why this trend may be happening with evidence backed by regression analysis. This proves the validity of regression analysis to the audience.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner incorporate irony when discussing parenthood and names of children. They ironically mention the names Winner and Loser which adds humor and underscores the idea that one’s name alone does not define their success. This counters the reader’s expectations. In the story, the person named Winner ended up way less successful than the person named Loser. This evidence challenges the preconceive notion the reader may have had. Thus, if the reader recognizes the irony in the situation then they may feel more inclined to change their opinion regarding parenthood. The reader may have originally expected Winner to succeed and Loser to fail. Because the opposite happened, it reveals the insignificance of the naming industry discussed earlier in the book.

# data[].attributes.body
Levitt and Dubner addresses the audience directly to prove a point concerning names and their subsequent indignation of low-educated parents. The authors directly talk to the audience and directs through their reasoning to validate their point. Specifically, the usage of the word “you” signals to the reader that the authors are directly addressing them. Because the readers may get alerted by the authors, they may feel more inclined to listen to the information at hand and how it relates to them. The author asks the reader if they know someone with certain names that would represent a low-education family. The authors engage the readers to reveal a bigger purpose. They ultimately want to reveal how many factors go into success and the preconceived notions of things that cause success may not entirely be true.