Gladwell argues that our greatest strengths can also become our greatest weaknesses. I find Gladwell’s argument to be false based on the fact that the underdog doesn’t always win. He brings into question whether Goliath was actually a strong giant or an incapable underdog; Was David a dark horse or was he favored to win. Gladwell tells many tales in which the underdog faces obstacles they must overcome to succeed, but the underdog can’t always succeed. This is one of the flaws in Gladwell’s argument. We have all been the “David” in a situation before, maybe not to that extent, but we have. When you are put into a scenario where you are the underdog you don’t expect to come out like David, at least I don’t. Gladwell’s argument gives false hope to those who read it. I have been the underdog in numerous situations and nine times out of ten I come out on top, but that one time that I don’t is the one piece that is missing from Gladwell’s book. Gladwell focuses too much on the positive and not enough on the negative, in my opinion. …show more content…
I will give Gladwell credit where credit is due, he researched those two schools well, but that is all he did. He researched only TWO schools, when is two ever enough. You don’t just eat two carrot sticks, you don’t binge watch Netflix by watching just two episodes, it just isn’t enough. What I am trying to say is you can’t get all the statistics you need from just two schools, it isn’t enough. Gladwell should have been more broad with his research. Isn’t it ironic that one of his greatest strengths became his greatest