The only thing the two authors have in common is that they capture the audience's attention very well with their formulaic writing style, except that Chua lacks concrete evidence. In contrast, although both have a compare and contrast mode, Rich's is more dominant and Chua's also has a somewhat argumentative mode. Their tone is completely different from each other. Chua is confident and a little funny while Rich is more serious and monotonous. The biggest difference between the two authors is rhetorical appeal. Amy Chua depends on her logos and lacks ethics while Motoko Rich is strong in both logos and ethics but lacks pathos. In this difference, Rich is better by being able to use real facts and not just personal experiences to formulate his thesis. All in all, Motoko Rich's article surpasses Amy Chua's in multiple aspects