The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare” has elicited different argument in its support and against it. The conservative and the liberal have come out to express their applause and concerns on this piece of legislation.
Interesting to note is the wide use of different forms of language to pass their message to each other and to the nation at large. There have been contentious issues between the liberal and conservative parties in terms of morality and frames of the introduced health care reform.
The effectiveness and validity of the arguments do not depend either on premises or on conclusions, but on the right form of the statement. Within this context, in case the premise is false, the conclusion should be false as well and vice versa.
Alternative variants are not acceptable. This essay shall seek to determine how various forms of statements are employed to achieve certain purposes. The essay also delves into how effective this purpose is achieved.
Invalid reasoning is a form of reasoning that is characterized by the strong stand with very little or no reasoning at all. This form of reasoning has no input in terms of logic. It does seek to critically analyze the underlying issues to come up with its conclusions.
The examples of invalid reasoning are reflected in the right-wing representatives who focus on sound and strong conclusions with no reference to logical references. At a glance, their focus on unconstitutionality does not provide concrete examples from the U.S. constitution (Wilson 3).
However, the emphasis is placed on the rigid violation of human rights and excess pressure on the state and federal government on the citizens’ decision to buy private insurance.
In addition, the premise that “the health care reform act is simply a bad law” cannot be regarded as the right one (Wilson 3). In this respect, the effectiveness of argumentation in this case is low because it does not correspond to the conclusions made.
The opposite for invalid reasoning is Logical validity. This normally concerns itself with the form of an argument. Logically valid arguments are based on premises that are usually minimally relevant to the conclusion.
Also imperative to note is that if the premises are all true, then logically the conclusion must be true. The reason is that it is always impossible to have a valid argument based true premises and end up with a false conclusion. Arguments must be valid to give us a sufficient reason to accept a conclusion.
An example of the valid argument is represented in the article published in The New York Times where the author criticizes the reform because of the fiscal crisis. Hence, his argument is confined to the idea that the government will suffer extreme financial losses because a money deficiency for providing insurance to people belonging to the social layers below the poverty line (Rush to Abandon the Poor 2).
However, the article represented by Degolia, the left-wing representative, does not provide substantial premises for building the argument because it refers directly to the criticism of the right-wing policy (2). The article published by The Progressive focuses on moral dimension and real-to-life stories who failed to receive adequate treatment because of the inability to get health care insurance (Clinton 3).
The author makes a viable conclusion that corresponds to the initial assumptions. You’re mixing the introduction, which only needs to set up your discussion, with a body paragraph, which gets tangled up in the details
Effective reasoning involves a combination of different factors such as experience in order to come up with a conclusion. The decision derived from effective reasoning is also known as sound conclusion. It seeks to base its argument on the statistics that are available.
Effective reasoning is a proper means of challenging the invalid reasoning. For instance, in a New York Times Article titles Rush to abandon the poor, the author uses statistics to counter the Governor’s (from Texas) stand against the ObamaCare.
The author points out that over 6.3 billion people are uninsured in Texas. This is using the numbers that are available in order to advance an argument. The author explains the dire consequences of rejecting the ObamaCare on that ground.
While the governor had not relied on any sufficient evidence or experience for his stand, the author offers the reasons why it is important to accept the ObamaCare.
All the nonfiction works introduce various approaches and rhetoric devices to render the main thoughts and ideas concerning the implementation of ACA. Nonfiction reasoning reasons out of the belief that what he thinks about is true. For instance, in the ObamaCare, the nonfiction approach is that the rejection of the plan shall leave many people without insurance and therefore bring real adverse effects.
This is the belief among those in support of the plan. The adverse effects are real and non fictional. Despite the predominance of criticism of the law among the right-wing supporters and approval on the part of liberal parties, the argumentation techniques still vary.
This is of particular concern to the authors holding the central political outlook on the health care reform introduced by Obama.
Critical thinking normally refers to our ability to be able to think about complex ideas on our own and come up within conclusions that form the basis of our criticism or support in any argument. It encompasses thinking for ourselves as well as the ability to synthesize the contents and end up with a rational conclusion and deductions.
In such a manner, the author manages to reproduce a persuasive argument and introduce personal assessment of the situation. To support personal observations and reassure the audience in the validity of the argument, some authors apply to numeric data, as it is represented in the article published by Associated Press (1).
In this respect, the evidence shows that a combination of subjective and objective evaluations of the issue is effective because it performs two important functions – grabs the audience attention and engages them in the author’s personal opinion.
To understand the main concepts and critical ideas on the chosen readings, it is necessary to challenge the assumptions and read thoughts between the lines. The point is that all the presented articles introduce various rhetoric to persuade the audience in the messages they render, as well as to define whether their ideas are well organized and articulated.
As an example, Jasper argues, “Repealing ObamaCare is also absolutely necessary if we hope to avoid national economic collapse” (1). So, what is the connection between the Affordable Care Act and national economic collapse?
To explain the issue, the author refers to the analysis of other articles exploring the essence of the reform to conclude that “health care reform… is jam-packed with dangerous language that will provide federal bureaucrats with vast new powers that are compatible with totalitarian systems of government, but not with the American tradition of liberty” (p. 3).
To expand on the point, the author emphasizes that radical position on the reform contradicts the premises of the U.S. constitutions in terms of human rights and freedoms. In this respect, the author makes use of the language to persuade the audience that the given law can create serious challenges to the economic and social welfare of the U.S. nation.
In addition, the article is based on the approach of proving the issue from the contrary. Thus, the author first presents the idea of ObamaCare as an essential law and proceeds with heavy criticism of the latter.
Proving from the contrary is also reflected in the article by Kirsch (2). Specifically, the article discusses in detail all the benefits and the positive changes that the new law can bring into the healthcare.
However, the pitfalls of the reform are still discussed on the background of the highlighted advantages. In this respect, though the Act can provide people with a higher level of living for some layers of the population, the middle-class employees will face the most serious difficulties because the subsidies are not sufficient to allow the employees to purchase the private health care insurance.
At a certain angle, Kirsch applies to a sophisticated approach and takes a pseudo-neutral position to attract more readers to the issue. Similar techniques are represented by Lapointe who addresses until the problem as a third party criticizing both the Republicans and Democrats (3).
However, despite the criticism of the opposed parties, the article still provides arguments in favor the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. In such a manner, the author explains, “under the affordable care act of 2010, people with pre-existing conditions would no longer be defined coverage by insurance companies” (Lapointe 3).
Despite the fact that the article is published in the newspaper supporting conservative views, it still represents the legislation from a positive perspective. At the same time, the author introduces a contradictory point of views right after enlarging on the positive effects of the presented law. So, why does the author produce an extremely contrasting view with no exact position in regard to the ObamaCare?
Apparently, such a position has been chosen to encourage more audience to deliberate on the issue giving no political importance to the reform. Even the last sentence “America desperately needs healthcare reform, and Obamacare is the answer” does not actually provide a clear response to the exact position of the author toward the health care policies in the United States.
The articles under consideration also apply various modes of persuasion to endow their writing speech with a certain tone and to attract specific target audiences. Use of logos, pathos, and ethos vary from one work to another, but certain tendencies are still represented differently with regard to the authors’ political preferences.
Political affiliations and assumptions are explicitly represented through the three modes of persuasion being the major tool in delivering messages to the audience. An in-depth analysis of the readings has revealed certain tendencies in the techniques used by the representatives of liberal, central, and conservatives vies.
In particular, the representatives of the liberal, left-wing attitudes prefer using ethos to persuade the audience. As a proof, the authors apply mostly to existing facts and knowledge to base their personal evaluation on. In contrast, the articles published by the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal pathos in combination with logos to provoke emotions among the target audience.
They rely on moral dimensions and highlight ethical concerns of the reform outcomes. For instance, Gawande (3) makes an accent on the moral conception of the story about a terminally ill patient who does not lose hope during treating lung cancer (3).
Using radical methods in treating cancer, the author as if calls the reader to think over new changes and shifts in the health care system. Because of the radical influences, it is purposeful to assume that the author supports the revolutionary approach that should be applied to improve the situation in the country.
Finally, the conservative proponents – the Washington Times, the New American, and The American Spectator – choose to use a double approach to persuading and capturing the attention of their audience and, therefore, they use a combination of pathos and ethos to enhance their articles.
While reading the article, the audience should clearly distinguish between personal opinion and exposition of knowledge and facts. To begin with the authors refer to facts and knowledge to enhance the objectivity to the ideas delivered in the article.
In such a way, they can capture the attention of the readers who are more interested in the presence of objective evaluation to the event and are skeptical in terms of the authors’ personal argument. In this respect, author’ personal opinion is represented as a subjective dimension in the article.
It is obvious that all newspaper articles seek to deliver a subjective opinion on the issue to determine the authors’ position, as well as identify the political beliefs they uphold. With regard to the chosen material for analysis, all the articles deliver subjectivity, but to a different extent.
Specifically, much subjectivity is imposed on the story represented by Gawande (3) who introduces a tragic story about women who has a serious form of lung cancer, but who remains optimistic and hopeful. Focusing on emotional dimension, the author makes use of personal opinion to enhance audience’s emotional engagement with the story.
In contrast, Jasper is more concerned with representing objective facts and focus on the logic of thoughts exposition. In such a manner, the author manages to persuade the audience that the article represents a strong chain of arguments and assumptions. In particular, the article refers to existing legislation passages to ensure that Obamacare policies cannot be justified in a constitutional way.
To contrast and compare, Gawande, a newspaper reporter has produced an emotionally colored story about a terminally ill patient with no reference to ObamaCare policy. In such a manner, the author emphasizes the necessity to introduce progressive and revolutionary changes to the medical sphere and medical treatment in general.
The writing represented by the Washington Post focus on the deplorable status of the uninsured citizens in the United States. In particular, the author generalizes the negative consequences and refers directly to the shortcomings of Medicaid expansion, which could still leave some layers of the population without health care insurance.
In this respect, much concern should be connected with the consistency and reasonableness of the presented policy. In such a way, the given work refuses to support the ObamaCare project because of large-scale negative outcomes.
Finally, the Wall Street Journal chooses a neutral position and addresses the debates between Liberal and Conservatives to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act in terms of the racial discrimination policy. At this point, Taranto centers on the problem of political correctness that has come to the forth because of the radically introduced reform.
Hence choosing various approaches and tools for addressing the issues, the central forces remain neutral toward the reform by introducing the negative and positive outcomes of reform and by criticizing the accusation on the part of conservatives and liberals.
Explicit distinctions between personal opinion and facts are represented in the work by Taranto who introduces quotes for the readers’ objective evaluation and provides personal analysis for the audience to contrast and compare it with their own vision of the argument.
In conclusion, a critical analysis of the presented articles discovering the liberal and conservative views on ObamaCare policy has revealed explicit tendencies in expressing thoughts and delivering specific concepts.
In particular, liberal proponents are more concerned with radical and revolutionary changes that should occur in the country and, therefore, the articles supporting this position uphold the adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Conservative supporters reject the reasonableness of the ObamaCare policy because of the significant economic and political consequences.
Their neutral position is taken by the newspapers that introduce the debate from third-party perspectives. In addition, presenting ideas is also followed by the distinct use of ethos, pathos, and logos.
In this respect, liberal wing is more concerned with using ethos; conservative activists prefer to make use of pathos. Finally, the central forces refer to mixed modes of persuasion.
Despite discrepancies in using rhetoric devices, all the authors have managed to use a combination of objective and subjective observations, which essential for attracting the target audience.
Works Cited
Associated Press. “States Could Leave Millions of Low-Income People Uninsured in a New Medicaid ‘Doughnut Hole.” Washington Post. 2012. Web.
Clinton, Kate. “Public Health Care Cures Worry”. The Progressive. 2009. Web.
Degolia, Rachel. “Obamacare” Fight Could Determine Nation’s Future”. People’s World. 2012. Web.
Gawande, Atul. “Letting Go: What Should Medicine Do When It Can’t Save Your Life?”. The New Yorker. 2010, Web.
Jasper, William F. “Repealing Obamacare”. New American. 2010. Web.
Kirsch, Richard. “In Defense of ‘Obamacare’”. The Nation. Web.
Lapointe, Mike. “Obamacare: The Answer to America’s Need for Healthcare Reform”. The Washington Times. 2012. Web.
Rush to Abandon the Poor. The New York Times. 2012. Web.
Taranto, James. “Political Correctness and Racial Tension”. The Wall Street Journal. 2012. Web.
Wilson, Andrew B. “Ten Ways That Obamacare Is Bad Law” The American Spectator. 2012. Web.