From Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck Book Analysis

Authors slave away to create an emphatic essay that will proselytize or inform readers on a multitude of varying subjects. Effective functionality of an essay depends on the profitability of rhetorical devices used, which directly affects an essay’s strength. If an essay boasts one strong manipulative rhetorical device, can it support an essay that has other unsatisfactory aspects? 

In “From Mindset: The New Psychology of Success” Carol Dwek discusses opposing mindsets and how they affect mental health and stability of the thoughts of mind. She dissertated how a growth mindset substantially increases oneself quality of living. Dwek continues by explaining how people’s actions allow their genes to transform due to environmental surroundings, allowing the mind to grow. Furthermore, she continues to discuss how people look upon situations differently than others, and provides a few questions so the reader can figure out what mindset they have. In addition to figuring out mindsets, Dwek furthermore discusses people’s contradictory evaluations of themselves. She adds that rumination of growth mindsets is not a recent conceptualization in society. Finally, Dwek ceases her essay by informing any reader that they must strive to amplify their growth mindset (603). Even though Dwek had effectively applied pathos throughout her essay, she had not applied proper thesis or topic sentence decorum and imprinted a negative outlook on her credibility.

Dwek implemented pathos with strong emphasis, contributing to the cogency of her essay. Throughout Dwek’s essay, she administered powerful pathos with the way she harnessed adolescent’s trials and tribulations to tangle inner emotions. Near the introduction, Dwek presents a paragraph of an inquiry of which she experimented with on a group of children. She stated that the children had perseverance through what seemed to be impossible challenges, thinking that they were learning through failure (596). Dwek exploits the reader’s emotions by exerting and fabricating an image that even if a child can avail from a growth mindset, multitudes of others can apply a growth mindset to themselves also. After that, Dwek had applied pathos with efficacy by making the reader feel as they have an issue that she wants to help with. Feeling like the reader has an inner issue; Dwek offers a solution, which plays with emotions making the reader feel collected. Dwek had encroached on emotions and executed pathos with authority in the course of her essay. 

Although Dwek’s application of pathos fortified her essay, her defenses crumbled with her thesis statement and topic sentence. Dwek had stated her thesis, “What are the consequences of thinking that your intelligence or personality is something you can develop, as opposed to something that is a fixed, deep-seated trait?” (596). Dwek had made a climacteric solecism of proper thesis construction. In elaboration, to uphold competent thesis decorum, a thesis must narrow and focus on an issue whilst sustaining organization. Without a thesis, Dwek’s essay relinquishes its purpose creating unorganized turmoil. In addition, Dwek did not apply her thesis statement to what she really wanted to discuss throughout her essay. She strived to explain only the growth mindset throughout her essay, but completely forgot to discuss deeply about fixed mindsets. Without properly discussing what she stated in the thesis statement, the entire essay lost its purpose. To add onto Dwek forgetting to discuss deeply about fixed mindsets, throughout her essay, Dwek had just gone around the questions from her thesis without giving a solid answer. Dwek’s paragraphs became ineffective as she was just going back and forth on different topics, taking away from her organization. 

In addition to Dwek’s unclear thesis, Dwek used first and second person in a manner that imprints a negative impression, rather than standing as a credible author. Dwek had put forward an overly friendly tone across her essay. Dwek used an expression “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” and exclaimed, “By the way, I was delighted to learn that the Italians have the same expression” (601). Dwek employs an illusion that proceeds to imply that she is a friend, making a crucial mistake, withdrawing her credibility as an author. Furthermore, the appropriateness of first person seems more like a personal discussion rather than an academic essay. Even if Dwek has a profound sum of experience with growth mindset, her improper use of first person diminished her credibility as a writer.

Although Dwek effectively applied pathos within her essay, she had lost efficacy with her topic and thesis statement and leaving a questionable use of first and second person. Dwek had abused applications of pathos by manipulating the reader’s emotions. Dwek had not suitably constructed a thesis statement, making her entire paper a demonstration, rather than effectively proving a perspective. Furthermore, Dwek continued to tarnish her credibility by covertly implying that she becomes a friend with the reader. Effective application of every rhetorical device used provides to the success of an essay.