Firstly, Whippman’s argument was very interactive in terms of howrelatable it is towards the audience. Whippman first starts off her argument bytelling the audience about her personal experience of finding happiness. Thisallows the audience to relate to her story and because of this, be pulled intoher argument and be more inclined to believe her stand. She also points outinformation that the audience can easily agree with or relate to. For example,she stated that “the average American now spends less than four minutes a day hostingand attending social events…” (Whippman, 2017, Para 9) due to the strive tofind happiness within.
She continues to write that “That’s 24 hours a year,barely enough to cover Thanksgiving dinner, and your own child’s birthdayparty.” (Whippman, 2017, Para 9). How Whippman includes the fact that we arenot spending enough time with our families is very relatable, hence allowingthe audience to take a step back and reflect for a bit, reeling us just thatbit into her argument and finally convincing us that her stand is indeedcorrect. As compared to Grave’s article, it has more of a negative tone in thevery start of his article, which puts audiences down, at least that was how Ifelt when I read it.
Especially when he stated this part: “But will all thismake you happier? Sure, but only temporarily (sigh)” (Grave, 2017, Para 1).This makes the audience feel as though Grave is trying to dictate whathappiness means to us, like he is trying to set a straight path as to howhappiness is strived for in every single person. Everyone’s happiness isderived differently, we should not be told what to feel or how much time shouldwe feel this way if that is not how we originally were. Hence, I felt thatGrave’s tone was very off-putting and did not encourage the audience to read onfurther.
Therefore, to conclude, Whippman’s argument was much more relatable tothe audience as compared to Grave’s argument, hence, it was a more persuasivecase.