Argumentative writing: persuading others through credible evidence and reasoning

¶ … Convincing Others Needs 1-2 pages long.

Brave New

In all actuality, neither Alan Ehrenhalt nor Barbara Dority are exceedingly convincing in their arguments posed in the "The Misguided Zeal of the Privacy Lobby" and "Halt and Show Your Papers!," respectively. Ehrenhalt's conviction largely banks on widely rambling generalizations, while Dority's essay is littered with too many illogical conclusions or, conclusions which may in fact be logical, but for which the evidence that makes them so is not presented and leaves the reader wondering as to how certain effects may be produced from the causes the author mentions. To that end, then, Ehrenhalt's essay is the least illogical, and therefore by default the most convincing.

An example of one of the numerous generalities that Ehrenhalt utilizes throughout "The Misguided Zeal of the Privacy Lobby" can be found near its conclusion, when he is trying to discredit the perceived threat to privacy that a national identification card represents. The author writes, "One trait that marks just about all of us during childhood and adolescence is an unremitting anxiety about what other people think of us. When we get older, it we are lucky, we begin to realize that, in fact, other people aren't thinking about us most of the time. Other people are worried about themselves." The author's comparison to concerns regarding the issues of privacy of a national system of identification and database to adolescent concerns of insecurity about other people's thoughts is fairly silly. While such thoughts are largely imaginary, the potential harm to privacy of such national systems of identification is actual. Furthermore, this 'metaphor' is based on a generalization that all people have experienced these feelings of insecurity, which is not necessarily true.

Still, such silly generalizations become downright believable when compared to some of the unsubstantiated conclusions that Dority uses to convince readers that national identification cards pose significant threats to individual privacy. For instance, the author asserts that "ID cards would foster new forms of discrimination and harassment. Rather than eliminating discrimination, as some have claimed, a national identity card would foster new forms of discrimination and harassment of anyone…" Yet the author's basis for making this statement is largely unfounded. She offers that a precedent was set for such discriminating paranoia by some obscure immigrant legislature from 20 years prior. However, such legislation is not explained, nor is it explained how a national identification card relates to immigration legislation from several years beforehand. Still, the author is attempting to convince the reader that the effect of discrimination and harassment will be produced by the cause of implementing a national identification card system. The reader has little more than her word to take as the reason to believe her assertion, since it is largely unfounded and based on an illogical conclusion.