Democrats or Republicans: Choose Your Poison

The first article I read was Trifecta of Torment, by Nicholas D Kristof. Kristof discussed the much debated topic that has plagued our country since its infancy, which political party is better suited to run the country. The author used what I’ll call the “gaming” style when talking about the subject (meaning he talked about the Democrats and Republicans as if they were ball game and could be given points to see who the winner is). Kristof also used many fallacies in my opinion: hasty generalization, post hoc, and either/or fallacy, while his argument appeal of choice was pathos. I came into this article with an open mind, and as I read the article I found myself agreeing with the author as he stated the facts plainly, but as Kristof started to build the foundation of his argument I disagreed with him completely. When he stated his facts, the sources he got them from all seemed to be coming from the same places and lack verity. He also only used the facts that suited his argument. His use of Pathos wasn’t well executed because he tired to appeal to the unemployed as well as the tax payers in a way that was condescending in my eyes.

The second article I read was Obama’s Lock in 2012 by Peter Beinart. He talked about how President Obama basically has secured his office for the next presidential campaign. He used false analogy and logos for his argumentative appeals. Beinart used past presidents as examples of how everyone, save four, had gotten their party’s nomination as well as winning their second term election. I thought that the arguments that were made were very valid and made sense. He used logos in a very thoughtful and logical way. The author presented his facts with solid examples which aren’t controversial like the facts that Kristof used when he wrote his article.

The third article I read was Connecticut on the Ropes by Gail Collins. Connecticut in this midterm election is where the Republicans are looking to see if they can secure the Senate seat. Collins argues that the voters aren’t worried about who the candidates are, meaning the candidates are all people who the author thinks shouldn’t be people running for the Senate seat because of their odd personalities as well as business choices. The argument tools that were used by Collins in this article was, appeal to popularity with logos and pathos combined to present her opinion. I thought that the author did a very good job because of the points she made, she talked about how the candidates that are running are all very…colorful people (to put it politely). The part that I thought Collins could have done better to present her opinion was if she showed that the Democrats had more “normal” people running for the Senate seat.