Sample Rhetorical Analysis“Why School Vouchers Are Worth a Shot” by Katrina Trinko

Make sure you read the article before viewing this analysis. Otherwise, it’s not going to make sense.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-04-18-school-vouchers-worth-a-shot.htm

What is the purpose of the article?

To convince readers that school vouchers improve high school graduation rates and are, thus, a good idea.

Who is the audience of the article?

The article appears in USA Today, which is a national newspaper.

“policy equivalent of Lindsay Lohan-like level of attention”

“whether it’s OK to like Justin Bieber or whether he’s strictly for the tween set.”

References to celebrities

suggest the audience is

familiar with pop culture.

Who is the audience of the article?

This description suggests the audience may not trust the

government or may be frustrated with it.

A small government is valued by conservatives,

so this description appeals to them. It may, on the other hand, turn

off those on the left.

“do-nothing lawmakers”

“Imagine if we only passed legislation that simultaneously slashed spending, boosted income equality, shrunk government, protected the environment, and ensured that pandas didn’t go extinct.” (underlining added)

What is the context of the article?

This article was written during a time when many educational topics were under debate:• School vouchers (school choice)• Common Core standards• Public School financing• Low scores from American students on the

international PISA exam• No Child Left Behind• Merit pay for teachers

What is the context of the article?

More directly, the article mentions several voucher initiatives being proposed at the time. This article may have been written during this time to persuade voters and lawmakers making decisions about these initiatives.

How is ethos demonstrated in the article?

USA Today is a trusted news source.

The author is named, not anonymous, and

information about her experience is included at the bottom of the page.

“Katrina Trinko, a former editorial page intern at USA TODAY, writes for National Review Online.”

How is ethos demonstrated in the article?

Trinko uses lots of numbers and percentiles, which makes it seem as if she is well informed on this issue.

She inserts links to show that she is referencing outside evidence rather than just

spouting her own opinion.

“there was a 21 percentage point gap between the graduation rates of those in the voucher program (graduation rate: 91%) and those who had applied, but had failed to win the placement lottery (70%)”

“According to Teach for America, an organization that recruits recent college graduates to teach at failing public schools, only half of low-income students graduate high school by age 18.”

How is pathos demonstrated in the article?

Trinko mostly uses an objective, journalistic tone in her article, which

does not inspire strong emotions.

She also uses a humorous, sarcastic

tone in places.

“According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, 1.3 million teens drop out of high school every year.”

“vouchers have failed to transform struggling students into Harvard-bound prodigies”

“whether their parents flip burgers or manage hedge funds”

How is pathos demonstrated in the article? Trinko uses word choice to create a feeling

of disgust in her readers toward government officials.

“Quixotic” refers to something that is impractical, impulsive and unpredictable. Trinko uses this word

to make lawmakers sound ridiculous and untrustworthy, further enhancing her audience’s

disgust toward elected officials.

“do-nothing lawmakers who failed to solve any of our pressing problems, just because they couldn’t find a quixotic policy that solved them all.” The term “do-nothing” lawmakers is

intended to make her readers feel animosity toward those in

government.

How is logos demonstrated in the article?

Trinko mostly relies on logos in her argument, including lots of percentiles and numbers.

“In Washington, D.C., a 2010 study by the U.S. Department of Education found that there was a 21 percentage point gap between the graduation rates of those in the voucher program (graduation rate: 91%) and those who had applied, but had failed to win the placement lottery (70%).”

How could the argument be expressed as a syllogism?

Premise 1: We want the high school graduation rate to improve. Premise 2: Vouchers improve the high school graduation rate. Conclusion: Thus, we want vouchers.

The syllogism is valid because it arrives at a logical conclusion based on the two premises.

We don’t know if the syllogism is true, however, because while the first statement is true, it is not completely certain if the second statement is true.

It may or may not be sound, because while it is valid, it is unclear if both premises are true.

Does the article use a deductive or inductive argument style?

Trinko’s conclusion is that vouchers increase high school graduation rates. Her main evidence to support this claim is information from two particular studies that she cites: one by the U.S. Department of Education and one by the University of Arkansas’ School Choice Demonstration Project. Since her conclusion is reached using specific evidence, it is clear that she is using an inductive argumentation style.

What logical fallacies, if any, are present in the argument?

Trinko claims that school vouchers themselves increase graduation rates.

This is a cause and effect relationship.

While her evidence is strong, it is possible that her conclusion is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc—the idea that two events that occur closely together are cause and effect.

How could it be post hoc ergo propter hoc?

In the reports Trinko refers to, researchers are hesitant to outright declare that vouchers led to increased graduation rates:“In general, researchers were not able to determine whether the higher graduation rates were caused by practices in the voucher schools, and whether families who use vouchers differed from other families in ways that would lead to higher graduation rates. The fact that voucher users have parents who were sufficiently motivated to seek out a voucher suggests that these parents may have a greater tendency than other parents to support and encourage their children to aspire to finish high school and attend college” (Keeping Informed).

How could it be post hoc ergo propter hoc?

In regards to the Milwaukee study Trinko references, researchers found that “[v]oucher parents tended to have lower incomes but higher levels of education than did Milwaukee public school parents” and “[v]oucher parents . . . had slightly higher expectations for their children than the comparable public school parents” (Keeping Informed).

How is that post hoc ergo propter hoc?

While the vouchers themselves may have led to greater graduation rates, it is also possible that it was parental expectations that led to these rates. Or it could be a combination of the two.

Thus, we cannot conclusively state that it was the vouchers by themselves that led to the higher graduation rates.

How effective would this argument be in persuading an audience?

The use of numbers as evidence and the fact that Trinko refers to more than one study would make this article highly persuasive to a certain audience. Specifically, conservatives and people without strong opinions on the issue would be convinced by it.

Those on the political left would probably not be convinced by her argument, possibly because of confirmation bias or because of evidence to the contrary that is not cited here.

Works Cited

Keeping Informed about School Vouchers: A Review of Major Developments

and Research. Center on Education Policy, 2011. www.cep-dc.org/

cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Usher_Voucher_072711.pdf. Accessed

20 Jan. 2017.

Trinko, Katrina. "Why School Vouchers Are Worth a Shot." USATODAY.COM,

18 Apr. 2011, usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/

2011-04-18-school-vouchers-worth-a-shot.htm. Accessed 20 Jan. 2017.