“Why Summer Makes Us Lazy”: Rhetorical Analysis

In the scorching embrace of summer, a symphony of rest, vacations, and recovery usually plays, drowning out the demands of work. The delicate dance between summer and productivity takes center stage in the author's exploration. The narrative unfolds, tracing its roots back to 1852, where a weary Harvard librarian, John Langdon Sibley, bemoans the oppressive summer heat as the nemesis of his vitality (Konnikova).

Venturing into the contemporary realm, the author weaves a tapestry of evidence from studies conducted in 2008 and 2021. Statistical revelations emerge, depicting a direct correlation between weather and work duration.

On rainy days, the workforce defies the allure of home, lingering half an hour longer at their posts, their productivity reaching new heights in the cool embrace of precipitation (Konnikova). Modern research becomes the compass guiding the narrative, illuminating the intricate relationship between temperature, weather patterns, and cognitive prowess. Surprisingly persuasive arguments effortlessly sway students when the weather takes a turn for the pleasant during the summer months (Konnikova).

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified writer

Proficient in: Research

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

As the plot thickens, a final revelation unveils the nuanced dance of temperature on mood, resembling an inverted-U pattern. The author skillfully navigates through the maze of scientific findings, crafting a narrative that encapsulates the essence of summer's impact on human productivity and well-being. The reader is beckoned into a world where the heat of summer becomes an antagonist in the productivity saga, with raindrops and cooler temperatures emerging as unsung heroes in the quest for efficiency.

Initially, it's crucial to highlight the author's commendable practice of fortifying arguments with verifiable research, lending an air of credibility to the article.

The sequential presentation of ideas constructs a cohesive narrative, guiding the reader through the intricate tapestry of the relationship between summer and productivity. However, the overreliance on third-party sources, studies, and statistics emerges as a drawback. In the second paragraph, the author introduces data from the American Time Use Survey of 2008 and research from 2012 without delving into insightful analysis, leaving the reader yearning for more substantial conclusions (Konnikova). While the statistical support is robust, the absence of the author's own reflections hampers the article's persuasiveness.

The core predicament lies in the persistent absence of the author's reasoning throughout the text. The subsequent paragraph, centered on a cognitive abilities study, details the experiment and outcomes but fails to distill the information into conclusive insights (Konnikova). Despite the compelling sources, the article lacks a cohesive argumentative thread, thrusting the responsibility onto the reader to independently interpret the provided data.

In a notable shift, the author transitions from detailing specific studies to incorporating them as supporting pillars in her analysis. However, this shift is marred by imprecise semantic constructions, leaving the reader with glimpses of suggested ideas that remain underdeveloped. The notion that cognitive shifts might be linked to emotions, buoyed by people's increased happiness in sunnier weather, receives fleeting mentions with scant exploration (Konnikova). The evidence from various studies is presented as quick facts, yet the resulting conclusion that summer is the happiest season lacks the depth of analysis needed for a compelling argument.

In navigating the delicate balance between presenting research and offering personal analysis, the author treads uneven ground, leaving the reader with a collage of data to decipher rather than a guided exploration leading to a definitive standpoint.

While the narrative maintains a semblance of coherence, the overarching problem lies in the lack of persuasive depth across all explored ideas. The seamless transition from dissecting the impact of weather on productivity and cognitive functions to probing into people's emotional states under varying temperatures and sunlight is logically executed, yet each topic remains cursorily investigated. The cited sources are merely skimmed, contributing one or two isolated facts meant to serve as feeble attempts to sway the reader towards the author's stance.

As the article unfurls, the accumulation of sources and arguments fails to crystallize into a compelling conclusion. The inconclusiveness reaches its zenith in the final paragraph, where the author draws a tepid conclusion solely from a previously cited source, neglecting to weave together the entirety of the explored material. This absence of a conclusive resolution disrupts the previously coherent structure, which navigated from an introduction, through problem delineation, and attempts at explanation.

Essentially, the article abruptly terminates by introducing another fact through a link to an additional study. This departure from the established structure fractures the narrative, transforming what began as a cohesive exploration into a disjointed compilation of problems. The failure to deliver a concluding statement that reinforces the initially posited thesis, synthesizing all sources into a clear answer, further diminishes the article's persuasiveness. Konnikova's work struggles not only with format issues due to the pervasive lack of reasoning but also with the weakness of argumentation, as none of the factors presented attain convincing elaboration.

It is conceivable that the author's intent was to offer a compendium of facts and research for readers to independently explore. If this were the assumed goal, it may be considered achieved, but the article, when scrutinized, falls short of being unequivocally convincing.

In unraveling the intricate relationship between summer and productivity, the author skillfully leads the reader through a narrative woven with historical anecdotes and contemporary studies. However, the reliance on external sources diminishes the article's persuasiveness, lacking the author's insightful reflections. The transition from specific studies to supporting pillars in the analysis falters with imprecise semantic constructions, leaving suggested ideas underdeveloped. As the article concludes, it abruptly introduces another fact without a synthesis of explored material, disrupting the coherence established earlier. While the article seemingly achieves its goal of providing a compilation for independent exploration, the absence of a conclusive resolution renders it less than unequivocally convincing.