The most irregular combinations of topics are discussed in the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Economics is approached in the most unconventional way and driven by questions that until now have not been asked regularly or at all. Levitt and Dubner both compare incongruous topics that capture your attention and leave you really wondering how they relate. Throughout the chapters, both authors support their claims using multiple rhetorical strategies. The authors argue that there is no unifying theme to this book and it is demonstrated in each chapter, but there is a shared message, that economics is the study of incentives. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In chapter 6, “Would a Roshanda by any other name smell sweet?”, the authors use logos and statistical evidence such as graphs and charts to support and persuade the audience to agree with their affirmations. The main focus of the chapter is the incentive behind the names parents choose for their newborns and what this represents. The authors used the following tables: "The twenty 'blackest' girls' names", "The twenty 'blackest' boys' names", "The twenty white boys' names that best indicate parents with a high school education" and “Twenty White Girl Names That Best Signify High-Education Parents” to support their claims that the incentive for choosing a particular name falls under the belief that it will influence the child's development and also extends to ethnicity and to culture beliefs.In chapter 3, “Why do drug dealers still live with their mothers?”, the authors use pathos to project the underlying message that economics is the study of drug dealers' lifestyles brought to the reader's attention through comparison. As the authors state, “an editorial assistant making $22.00 at a Manhattan publishing house, an unpaid high school quarterback, and a teenage crack dealer making $3.30 a l. 'Now they're all playing the same game, a game that's best viewed as a tournament. The tournament rules are simple. You have to start from the bottom to have a chance." With this comparison the authors try to convince the reader to sympathize with the dealer's unfortunate situation. Although many are disgusted by this lifestyle, the authors make the audience understand that for the drug dealers, it was their only option and their best chance for success. The authors built their statement on pathos and emotionally appealed to readers to understand what it means to be a drug dealer; incentives, or in this case the economy. In Chapter 4, “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?”, the incentives and outcomes of abortion are discussed. The authors state that “the same factors that drove millions of American women to have abortions also seemed to predict that their children, if they were born, would lead unhappy and perhaps criminal lives.” As a result of this statement, “legalized abortion has led to less undesirability; undesirability leads to a high level of crime; legalized abortion, therefore, has led to fewer crimes.” To support this claim the authors provided the following statistics: “violent crime in the first legalized states decreased by 13% compared to other states; between 1994 and 1997, their homicide rate fell 23 percent more than that of other states.” The authors clearly appealed to logos and statistical evidence to support their case.