Hello there, I need help with this short English 102 (Rethoric and Composition) assignment, I would really appreciate it. The one and only requirement is to have the book named: David & Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell

I’m working on a English exercise and need support.

Based on Chapter 3 of the book:

Now that you’ve learned a little bit about how arguments work, you’re hopefully thinking about how that information applies to Gladwell and how he is able to persuade his audience. Gladwell argues that the way we’ve traditionally thought about conflicts is wrong. A big part of what he does is wreck our premises: he takes the foundations of our long-held beliefs and shows us that they’re not as stable as we thought they were.

For example, we thought that David beating Goliath was incredible because Goliath was so much bigger, but Gladwell destroys the premise that size is an advantage. He shows us that size was a disadvantage here, and that David had several clear advantages (none of which were size) that allowed him to win.

In Chapter 3, Gladwell talks about the big fish in a little pond vs. little fish in a big pond dilemma, saying that while most people will choose the big pond if they can, we’re often better off in the long run choosing the little pond.

In your response to today’s forum, tell us about a commonly held premise that Gladwell proves wrong in order to build his argument in Chapter 3. Then, tell us about a new premise he gives us to support his argument that it’s often best to be a big fish in a little pond. How does his conclusion follow his premise(s)? And, do you see any flaws in Gladwell’s premises or conclusions? (You might not. That’s OK!)