• Uncategorized

Article Commentary and Analysis Unit

ArticleCommentary and Analysis

Unit

ArticleChoice

Thefollowing is a commentary and analysis of an editorial article titled&quotrigging the market&quot published in the online issue of theLas Vegas review on 13th August 2016 (link:http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-rigging-the-market).

  1. premise

Theeditorial piece is based on the premise that artificial competitionis not healthy in any market. Economic theory postulates thatcompetition should be influenced by market forces only and notartificially created through regulations.

  1. Value

Basedon what has been going on, the article claims that the current andproposed policies on emission are unfair to the market. In fact, thepolicy seems to be unfairly benefiting Tesla Motors to the detrimentof other automakers. Thus, the article educates the public on theinterplay of government policies and private interests.

  1. Pathos, logos and ethos

Thearticle applies logos in significant ways. It presents factualinformation about proposed figures on vehicles to be sold in the nextten years. Again, the article gives another piece of factualinformation that Tesla Motors has been on a loss-making trend for thelast decade. The article also uses ethos to discredit thequalification of Assemblywoman Autumn Burke in making predictionsabout competition in the market or the automotive industry. It castsdoubt on her academic credentials in the two fields. The use ofpathos is evident in how the article samples the potentialimplications of such policies. The author claims that such policieswould lead to some automakers moving out of California and in theprocess jobs will be lost. Such scenarios evoke fear in the audience.

  1. Frame

Ideally,the article seeks to reframe and reframe some matters. According toHeinrichs (chapter 12), an article can try to change how the audienceperceives an issue through new information or a new angle. In thiscase, the article reframes the notion of competition by implying that&quottrue competition&quot cannot be created but occurs undermarket forces only.

  1. Herrick`s 7 General Tests of Evidence

Basedon Herrick chapters 7-9 on 7 General Tests of Evidence, the articlefails two tests, namely:

Credibility:The author does not provide substantial evidence of Ms. Burke`s lackof knowledge on matters about markets or the automotive industry. Theclaim that &quotit’s unclear where Ms. Burke earned her economicsand automotive engineering degrees&quot is not enough proof.

Adequacy:the article does not offer adequate evidence that the currentpolicies are geared to provide Tesla Motors undue advantage. This isbecause other automakers are not barred from developing purelyelectric motors but have been barred by their private views of themarket. Furthermore, there is inadequate evidence on the role of oilcompanies that have in the past indirectly opposed electric vehicles.

  1. Fear and humor

Accordingto Heinrich (chapter 9), authors can engage emotions for greatereffect. Accordingly, the current editorial strives to stoke fear inthe audience by suggesting that proposed policies on emissions maylead to firms moving out of California leading to loss of jobs.Again, giving Tesla undue advantage will weaken other automakers suchas Ford Motors and in the process result in loss of employment. Italso employs humor by ridiculing the Autumn Burke`s academiccredentials.

  1. Cicero`s Five Canons of Persuasion

Heinrichs(chapter 25) examines how Cicero`s Five Canons of Persuasion can beapplied in writing. Based on this, the current article has employedall the five canons.

Invention:the author combines observation on the current green auto market andthe situation facing Tesla motors to generate idea about the article.

Arrangement:The article has used several arguments and arranged them forefficient delivery. First, the article argues that Ms. Burke does notunderstand the topic of automotive emissions well. Then it claimsthat the possible drivers of her flawed reasoning and finally theirpotential outcome.

Style:The article uses simple language for better understanding by themasses. It does not include in-depth technical information.

Memory:The article invites the audience to rely on their memory tounderstand what pertains to competition.

Delivery:in general, the article employs simple language, uses simpleparagraphs to separate ideas and introduces and concludes thecommentary well.

  1. Heinrich`s seven deadly fallacies

Thearticle contains two of Heinrich`s seven deadly fallacies. One is thesin of ignorance is proof. Just because the author is unaware of Ms.Burke`s academic credentials is not enough proof that she does nothave them. Another fallacy is a false choice. The article fails toacknowledge that many forces drive competition in the market butsingles out market regulation through government policies.

  1. Conclusion

Thearticle concludes that Tesla Motors is behind the proposed plans.Apparently, the firm is employing unfair competitive tactics bysponsoring laws that give it an unfair advantage over otherautomakers. I do not agree with this view. The push for green cars isnecessary to save the planet and automakers have in the past held theworld at ransom by failing to develop alternative fuels. Tesla Motorsis disrupting this market and deserves to be supported. Such proposedlaws will nudge other automakers to abandon fossil fuels to save theplanet.

References

Editorial:Rigging the market. August 13, 2016. LasVegas Review-Journal.Retrieved from

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-rigging-the-market.

Heinrichs,J. (2013). Thankyou for arguing: what Aristotle, Lincoln, and Somer Simpson can

teachus about the art of persuasion.New York: Three Rivers Press,

Herrick,J. (2015). Argumentationunderstanding and shaping arguments.New York: Allyn and

Bacon…