TOW #23

            In Malcolm Gladwell’s book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, he uses several forms of analysis to prove his overall point that being the underdog can often be advantageous. Gladwell spends the entirety of the book verifying that, throughout history, misfits and underdogs have miraculously overcome burdensome prejudice despite their apparent lack of skill. He believes that, in the case of someone who may be outnumbered or outmatched in strength, dexterity, or popularity, using alternative methods can be more successful than having all the winning attributes and following the classical methods that have proved prosperous in the past. In order to prove this nearly inconceivable claim, Gladwell employs the use of extensive statistical analysis. Gladwell uses this form of persuasion in order to prove his point by writing, “What happens in wars between the strong and the weak when the weak side does as David did and refuses to fight the way the bigger side wants to fight, using unconventional or guerrilla tactics? The answer: in those cases, the weaker party’s winning percentage climbs from 28.5 percent to 63.6 percent.” (Gladwell 21-22). By using statistics and by citing logistical evidence, Gladwell appeals to logos in order to support his claim that using unconventional methods can be more successful than trying to win in a traditional way. His statistical analysis also has egos due to its credibility and is thus difficult to dispute, further solidifying Gladwell’s point. This allows him to achieve his purpose of helping people understand that it is okay and acceptable to be weaker or to be an outcast, and that anyone can still be victorious by using atypical methods. Through his use of statistical analysis, which appeals to both logos and egos, Malcolm Gladwell successfully proves and supports his claim while achieving the purpose of his book.