Communication Wenzel Delivers a Weak-Form

Communication

Wenzel delivers a weak-form argument that lacks many of the elements common in stronger arguments. Consider the pillars of persuasion: logos, ethos and pathos. Wenzel makes use of logos in that he seeks to draw connections between different facts and arguments. However, his use of logos is undermined by the lack of cohesion in the points he makes. The points seem at times to be only tangentially connected, and they do not build to a final point of argument. There is little appeal to ethos in Wenzel's argument as he chooses instead to state facts and fails to present a clear sense of his own ethical viewpoint on the H1N1 issue. Moreover, the argument lacks pathos. There are few emotional cues contained in this argument. For an illness that can threaten people's lives, there is little discussion of the actual human impact of H1N1 or of current policy regarding the illness. Thus, there are few points on which the emotions can be engaged.

The Toulmin model posits that an argument has six components: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal. Wenzel does not deliver a clear claim. Consider the closing sentence "We must use the lessons we're learned during the past year…to develop more effective public health responses." If this is a call to action, then it is poor, as no action has been stated. There are no specific details presented. If the claim is that current policy is inadequate, this should be clear during the course of the argument and a definitive, specific solution proposed. The Toulmin model was not used by the author -- grounds and warrants are not tied to any particular claim. There is little rebuttal, but again there would need to be something to rebut.

With this argument, audience is something that should be considered. The author is, apparently, arguing in favor of different public policy responses to an emerging crisis. The intended audience, then, is either politicians or medical professionals. A stronger argument would have galvanized one or both of these groups. The group should have been identified and an argument developed around some sort of common trait among the group members.

One of the most glaring weak points of this argument is the lack of conflict. The author fails to convey a sense of outrage about the status quo that he feels needs to be changed. There are no entrenched interests that must be dislodged. Without this sense of conflict, no solution either disruptive or constructive can be proposed. This perhaps is why the solution proposed at the article's closing is so uselessly vague -- there is no conflict to be resolved so no particular need for a strong resolution to be called for.

Instead, this argument is effectively egocentric. The author apparently wants something changed, but does not take the time to inform the audience about the issue, nor does the author feel the need to share his indignation wit the audience. Instead, the audience is left wondering why the author cared enough to write an op-ed in the New York Times, and the audience has no idea why he or she should care about this issue -- it may be a personal issue for the author, but remains a non-issue for the vast majority of the audience.