Examining Persuasive Rhetoric & Arguments with False Evidence
Okay, for my first crack at this 'How We Argue' thing, I decided to pull a quote from a rising star in the House of Representatives who also happens to be from my home state.
What We Saw in the Public Discourse
It was reported today that Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently said, "We must reject the notion that a centrally planned, bureaucratically run health care system can produce more favorable outcomes than the one managed by doctors and patients."
I don't want to wade too far into the health care debate on this first post, but I think this is a great quote. It demonstrates so much about persuasion and argument.
Congressman Ryan starts with a call to action: We must reject something.
He goes on to characterize the plan he is arguing against with some charged yet accurate descriptors: centrally planned & bureaucratically run.
What a great way to describe the plan we must reject. With just a few words Ryan has exposed the characteristics that most people don't like about the plan.
Then we get an alternative plan: the plan managed by doctors and patients.
Nice move. Doctors and patients are the most logical managers of health care. It's a great alternative.
Ryan's rhetoric is spot on: We should reject a demonstrably bad plan because there is a better plan available.
But be careful.
Persuasive rhetoric is a powerful tool, and it must be wielded with care. Ryan crosses a line in this quote.
He starts off fine. A lot of people don't want a centrally planned & bureaucratically run health care system, and for that reason his call to reject such a plan is reasonable.
But what about that alternative he presents: the plan managed by doctors and patients.
The plan?
There is such a plan? I've never seen such a plan. Health care is not currently managed by doctors or patients. It is managed by large bureaucratic insurance companies.
The Republicans have not presented a plan in which health care is run by patients and doctors.
Ryan's use of the definite article "the" suggests that we have a health care plan (somewhere) that is managed by doctors and patents. This rhetorical move may be persuasive, but it is problematic. It suggests the existence of evidence that is never presented - that doesn't exist. Decision makers are led to believe there is a strong alternative, but there is not.
In an effort to be persuasive, Ryan is trying to keep that information away from his audience.
What We Would See in the Composition Classroom
If this sentence was in a persuasive paper, I would applaud the student's command of language and the clarity of the argument.
I would, however, ding the student's grade for suggesting the existence of evidence but failing to present that evidence.
My constructive feedback would be as follows:
For the next draft, go out and find a reliable source that can attest to the existence of a health care plan run by doctors and patients.
Failing that, do not refer to evidence if that evidence is questionable or non-existent.
At the very least, lose the definite article.
"We must reject the notion that a centrally planned, bureaucratically run health care system can produce more favorable outcomes than
That way the alternative is only hypothetical.
2 comments:
I believe an unfortunate number of people would like to jump on the bandwagon of THE plan - of course we'd like health care run by doctors and patients - without stopping to ask your, "What plan is that?" question.
I just had to sign up for Cobra health care coverage to make sure i stay insured while changing jobs. The trick is I'm sick as a dog right now and don't want to go to see a doctor until I'm %100 sure I'm still covered. Even though I can afford some level of coverage, I struggle to understand the rules/limits and fear the consequences if something I filled out was done incorrectly. People that will not admit there are issues with healthcare have never tried to us it.
Post a Comment