REDHUGO Reading 2-2

          As the authors continue in their slower, smoother approach to persuasion as the book approaches Part IV, not only have their methods of argumentation changed, but the nature of their claims have as well. While it is perhaps a more subtle change from the beginning of Part III, it is nonetheless a significant one in Herrnstein and Murray's most controversial-yet-successful piece, The Bell Curve. In contrast with the former half of the book, the authors generally used a consistent formula in their arguments: laying context, making a claim, then providing and analyzing data. While it may seem like an approach similar to that of a high schooler's, it remained effective for most of the book's earlier topics, as the reader is expected to now view in hindsight as simply for contextual purposes. Now, rather than simply stating a flat claim, the authors first inject more personal, hidden insight into the topic. Sometimes it takes the form of more recent data that the authors have discovered, while at others it may simply be a new revelation that they both haven't discussed yet and expect the audience to themselves have not yet had. As a result, claims are more smoothly interwoven in the authors' discussions of topics and relevant evidence while still remaining fairly explicit. As long as the audience themselves are able to notice this, the impact of the authors' arguments is naturally strengthened.
          The primary caveat that a majority of the audience would have with such a change in Herrnstein and Murray's argumentative style, however, is a correlated change in the book's overall persuasive impact. While its earlier parts were not particularly repetitive or poorly-argued, there remains a very noticeable style change from Part II to Part III that continues to become more apparent as it approaches its final section. While upon his/her first reflection, the reader may appreciate such a change of pace, style, and thus impact, at some point, it may also cause the reader to develop a disdain for the authors' reluctance to employ such changes earlier in their work. Thus in hindsight, the difference in the effectiveness of the book's two halves is seemingly too drastic for a well-organized study.