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...

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.
The egocentricity of the argument is reflected as well in the use of evidence. Random anecdotes and statistics are presented, haphazardly, with little conveyance of the meaning of those stories and stats. The audience is essentially left to fend for itself with this evidence. To the author the relevance of the evidence may be self-evident, but the audience does not share this expert authority and therefore is not in on the secret. This shows too much egocentricity in the argument and further explains why the argument is ultimately weak and ineffective.