I decided to analyze chapter two of David and Goliath by Malcom Gladwell for the fact that this chapter immediately struck me by the effectiveness with which Gladwell conveys its message convincingly. manner that is based on credible evidence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay This chapter is where Gladwell wants to incorporate the lessons learned in the first chapter, the pros and cons of two simple (or so we thought) questions about education. Gladwell tells us more about this topic through the inverted U-curve. This topic is so important that it is used constantly throughout the book as we learn that what we think is a big advantage may not be one at all. We are brought into this education discussion with the question: Would you send your child to Shepaug Valley Middle School? Across the world, from the United States to Hong Kong, steps have been taken to reduce classroom sizes. It's one of the few things that 77% of Americans agree on. It seems simple enough, smaller class sizes allow students to have one-on-one time with teachers, which results in better grades. Yet there is evidence that supports the exact opposite. Additionally, Gladwell then introduces the inverted U-curve, parenting versus money, and how there comes a point where money and resources stop making our lives better and start making them worse. Gladwell tells the story of a boy from Minneapolis who became a powerful man in Hollywood, because his father was not. Raised to work hard to get what he wanted, so much so that it caused him to not want to live in this small town and depend on his father's job. “People are ruined by a difficult economic life. But they are also ruined by wealth because they lose their ambition, pride and self-esteem. Gladwell uses an example graph to paint a picture for us: automatically you will see a direct increase, the richer you are, the easier it is to be a parent. His argument is supported by researchers who study happiness. They suggest that more money no longer makes people happier with a household income of around seventy-five thousand dollars a year. Economists call this diminishing marginal returns. They then show a graph showing a plateau in wealth versus parenthood at $75,000. The argument now shifts gears and shows how, in fact, it might get harder after that dollar amount, because instead of the ability to say "no, we can't" to your child, you can only honestly say “no, I won’t,” which leaves room for a questionable attitude. . The Hollywood man falls into what Gladwell says is the inverted U curve, where you're at the point where money starts to make it difficult to raise normal, well-adjusted children. The inverted U curve tends to surprise us and this is where Gladwell tries to tie his argument about the pros and cons together. That being said, the graph itself might represent the contrarian, proving that in fact what you initially thought about the correlation with wealth and parenthood is not correct at all, and after thinking about it , you, as the reader, are now open to the point of view based on reputable sources and life examples. For the next aspect of the question, namely advantages versus disadvantages, Gladwell addresses the question of.