“In the article “Hidden Intellectualism” by Gerald Graff, many different “naysayers” can be found. These naysayers help to strengthen the authors argument. Graff states in her first paragraph “What a waste, we think, that one who is so intelligent about so many things in life seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work” By saying this, Graff is giving the audience the opposite point of view on her argument. After that statement she further explains what her argument seem less biased and more open minded. She later states “Students do need to read models of intellectually challenging writing- and Orwell is a great one- if they are to become intellectuals themselves. But…” She then continues to explain her argument further.

According to Gerald Graff’s article “Hidden Intellectualism” society considers informal learning to be watching sports and reading fashion magazines. However, what people fail to realize is that one can benefit from studying these topics and these topics should be considered intellectual. Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that these topics are considered to be hobbies. When thinking of an intellectual, many will picture someone reading a Shakespeare novel or a person solving mathematical calculations. While it is true that playing a sport can be a hobby and reading a fashion magazine can be done on someone’s lunch hour, it does not necessarily follow the fact that it takes the same brain capacity to analyze a specific sport and learn the rules and statistics. It is just as difficult and time consuming to do that then it is to solve a math problem. A person does need background knowledge and statistical information to fully grasp a specific sport; therefore people should not be undermined for being street smart rather than book smart. These are some possible ways that Graff could respond to my argument, in regards to his article.