restrain me from being able to completely disagree with him, but he makes a poor argument caused by the misleading information, manipulating media, and misdirected anger that too many people unconsciously get wrapped up on.
             One might say I'm being too literate, but in McClelland's article, it was noticeable that many of his stated facts and opinions lacked reliable credibility, exaggerated data, and contradicted other evidence in the article that resulted in misleading information. In the opening of the article, McClelland himself writes, "I had this student," my history teacher once told me, "a real chucklehead. Just refused to study. Dropped out of school, a year or so later, he came back to see me. He pointed out the window at a brand-new Camaro and said, 'That's my car.' Meanwhile, I was driving a beat-up station wagon. I think he was an electrician's assistant or something. He handed light bulbs to an electrician." (McClelland, par. 2). At this point, I would like to raise some objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me. Although this evidence (of an inadequate sample size) may be true, it is too vague and its interpretation could be misleading. At first, the thought that a high school dropout could find a job and buy a Camaro within a year was impressive. Then it becomes damaging when he takes a guess at the occupation before insisting that he handed light bulbs to an electrician. In deeper thought regarding priority, the teacher might've had a beat up station wagon, but what if he was wise and settled with no debt rather than a new car? I mean if he's a rebellious dropout or "chucklehead", I wouldn't doubt him pulling out a loan as soon as he was capable of owning a new dream car. Immediately following that text the author contradicts himself. At the same time that he argues "In our neighbors' driveways, in their living rooms, in th...