
In “Brain Gain: The Underground World of ‘Neuroenhancing’ Drugs,” Margaret Talbot considers the growing trend of both students and working professionals alike, taking stimulants such as Ritalin and Adderall- for which they are not prescribed. Talbot’s approach breaks from the traditional “just say no,” “drugs are bad” attitude maintained in most literature and dialogue surrounding the topic of misuse of prescription stimulants. Initially, the author’s argument is not easily discernable, as Talbot appears objective in her research and statistical analysis. Margaret Talbot’s benevolent tone, keen awareness of her audience and effective use of pathos all work together to create a sound, compelling argument in her article, “Brain Gain: The Underground World of ‘Neuroenhancing’ Drugs.” 

In “Brain Gain,” Talbot interviews several people who have taken stimulants either without a prescription or in a way that is considered misuse of the medication. The author’s tone when describing the individuals whom she interviewed, is neither judgmental or patronizing; rather, her ethos is established through her benevolence. The first individual that Talbot interviews is “Alex”- a pseudonym that he uses as he does not want to be identified. Talbot describes the recent Harvard graduate as highly motivated: “Alex wrote about a dozen papers a semester. He also ran a student organization, for which he often worked more than forty hours a week; when he wasn’t on the job, he had classes.” Talbot goes on to explain, “Since, in essence, this life was impossible, Alex began taking Adderall to make it possible” (169). The author does not portray Alex negatively for taking prescription stimulants. She does not provide any commentary or use a tone that would indicate any disapproval of Alex’s behavior, in fact, she appears to empathize with Alex.

 Further evidence of the author’s objectivity is found in her second interview, of an individual who is introduced as Mr. Seltzer. He is described as an intellectual who works at a counter-intelligence firm in Washington D.C. Before quoting Mr. Seltzer, the author provides background information which serves to establish his credibility as a highly intelligent source.  Mr. Seltzer’s approach differs from Alex’s in that he is more philosophical in his justification for taking stimulants. Mr. Seltzer argues, “[taking stimulants] is like customizing yourself- customizing your brain…. It’s fundamentally a choice you’re making about how you want to experience consciousness” (Talbot 173). Mr. Seltzer is of the mindset that people should have the freedom to do with their bodies as they please and that taking stimulants is simply a way of expanding one’s mental capabilities. Following the excerpt from her interview with Seltzer, Talbot describes how many great minds in history made use of mental stimulants. The author references Sir Francis Bacon and his use of substances such as tobacco and saffron as well as French novelist Jean-Paul Sartre’s use of “speed,” all in the attempt to gain an intellectual edge (Talbot 173). Talbot’s agreement with Mr. Seltzer in his assertion that stimulants are simply a way of increasing one’s mental capabilities, is further evidence that she is open to a way of thinking that does not stigmatize taking prescription stimulants (referred to as “neuroenhancers” in the article). The author’s understanding, good will ethos work to create an argument that is carefully crafted, with an additional benefit of ensuring that no part of the audience (that could potentially be taking prescription stimulants) gets offended or feels alienated. 

Talbot recognizes the traditional view of taking “neuroenhancers” as wrong, and that some people even consider it to be a form of intellectual cheating- prescribed or not. Breaking from this view is bold, an opinion that is not often published concerning the use of prescription stimulants. However, Talbot argues against the mainstream belief of neuroenhancers as being bad through effective use of testimonial evidence; her keen understanding of her audience allows her to use pathos most effectively. She interviewed a very intelligent Harvard graduate who admitted to misusing stimulants (Adderall). The author includes excerpts from her interview of Alex, describing experiences that many college students could relate to. Alex explains, “When you conceive of what you have to do for school, it’s in terms of nine to five but in terms of what you can physically do in a week while still achieving a variety of goals in a variety of different realms- social, romantic, sexual, extracurricular, résumé-building, academic commitments” (Talbot 170). This is a balance that many college students struggle with, and the author utilizes this to employ emotional appeal and thus, pathos. Further, Talbot’s description of Alex as a dedicated student at one of the most prestigious universities in the nation works to dispel the notion that only below-average, lazy people misuse prescription stimulants.  

Finally, after describing her interviews and analyzing these individuals’ reasoning for taking prescription stimulants in a manner that many consider to be ‘misusing’ them, Talbot articulates her own opinion on the matter. She plainly asserts, “It makes no sense to ban the use of neuroenhancers. Too many people are already taking them, and the users tend to be educated and privileged people who proceed with just enough caution to avoid getting in trouble” (Talbot 175). The arrangement of the author’s main argument in the essay suggests that her opinion on the matter was well thought-out; arriving at, what she sees, as the only logical conclusion given the evidence presented. 

Reluctant to articulate her own argument until the end of the essay, the author also demonstrates her objectivity which she maintains throughout her research. Talbot interviews several people and has no discernable biases prior to, or during, her interviews; therefore, she is not judgmental of these people that most of society looks down upon. This demonstrates her ethos as an author, which is imperative in forming a persuasive argument- especially on such a sensitive topic. The author establishing the credibility of the individuals whom she interviews is also vital in ensuring that the audience will actually believe, or even consider, such testimonial evidence. Finally, the author invokes pathos by providing the personal stories of one of her interviewees which she knows that her (college) audience can personally relate to. In “Brain Gain” the author makes use these rhetorical strategies: ethos, credibility, pathos and awareness of audience, to form a compelling argument that is persuasive for audiences even beyond the intended audience. 
