Wadle 1

Sara Wadle

Kelly Slivka

Eng 250

2 March, 2017

Rhetorical Analysis: Educating Uninformed Lawmakers

Recent budget cuts have forced Congress to reduce the size of expert groups who inform

lawmakers, but at what cost? Authors Justin Talbot-Zorn and Sridhar Kota have pondered this

very question. Their article Universities Must Educate Woefully Uninformed Lawmakers featured

on Wired.com on January 11th of this year, proposes that institutions of higher education must

help Congress by engaging experts from universities across the country in the lawmaking

process. Talbot-Zorn and Kota build their argument by using an abundance of logical appeals and

maintaining a formal style and organization that appeals to their credibility, however, some parts

of the rhetoric could have been modified to convince a broader audience of this inventive and

intriguing claim.

This article bases its foundation on logical appeals, namely facts and statistics, that allow

the reader to make an informed decision. For example, in paragraph 5, Talbot-Zorn and Kota

assert that the United States possesses 147 of the worlds top-ranked universities. This

statement presents a challenge to the reader and invokes a sense of pride for the state of

Americas education system. If this claim stands, there should be no obstacle too great to limit

the intelligent minds of America, this includes the predicament regarding uninformed lawmakers.

The fact that a group of about 140 primarily PhD experts who educated members of Congress

and performed deep-dive studies to inform legislation was disbanded, should produce some

sort of distress for the reader, who very likely already holds the belief that informed lawmaking
 Wadle 2

should be of top priority. The authors continue to appeal to their education-oriented audience in

paragraph 14 by revealing that only around 4 percent of federal lawmakers have technical

backgrounds, which is why they argue that more rigorous analytical thinking in government [is

necessary] to craft appropriate responses (14). The job description of a politician could hardly

be more broad, and eliminating the experts who keep them informed in all areas for which they

will produce legitimate legislation seems counter-productive to any sensible mind. However,

Talbot-Zorn and Kota reveal immediately after that this cut could save taxpayers about $20

million a year. This sounds like an appealing number to many money-conscious Americans,

however the authors stick to their belief that this was a particularly bad way to save money on

account of the consequences (1). Aside from justifying the legitimacy of the argument, Talbot-

Zorn and Kota provide logical justification to potential solutions too. One in particular that

stands out is the ability to create new professional opportunities and exposure for faculty and

students (13). Students are constantly looking for job experience, and what better way to allow

them to be active, participating citizens than using their knowledge for future legislative

endeavors. Ultimately, this entire argument relies on the readers basis of this logical conclusion:

if we want accurate, informed policy, we need to have educated representatives creating the laws.

As mentioned previously, style and organization play significant roles in leading the

audience to believe the argument is credible. The first aspect to notice is the title: big and bold,

with regal-looking font. Talbot-Zorn and Kota made a deliberate choice to use the thesis as the

title, which allows them to communicate their argument to the reader in a clear and concise way.

The authors also recognize the need to establish some sort of background for their audience

before addressing the premises, so they refrain from discussing the thesis further until the fourth

paragraph. Scrolling further down the page, readers will then see a picture of the rotunda of the
 Wadle 3

U.S. Capitol. It looks dignified and official, as though the space demands some sort of authority.

Though it is visual rhetoric, this photo sets up important framework for the readers. The authors

are able to paint a picture for the audience of how we ideally envision our government; an

official entity that is capable and intelligent. Talbot-Zorn and Kota clearly knew how to reach out

to their audience. Using wired.com as their platform, they are able to reach an analytical and

science-oriented audience, who would very likely be interested in the content. In terms of

organization, the clustering of paragraphs is manageable and succinct. The text is primarily

formal, however, contractions are used. This is a small factor, but it allows the authors to have

some voice and makes the text seem less pretentious. Most professional individuals are going to

understand the terms used in the text, regardless of whether they have extensive knowledge of

the law or not. Talbot-Zorn and Kota vary sentences and transitions appropriately, which leads

the reader to believe the article has value and is written by dependable authors.

Despite this effort to establish themselves as reliable sources, it is important to keep in

mind the scope of the audience, and perhaps some of their arguments proved, unknowingly, to be

disadvantageous. There has been recent debate over an excess of liberal educators in institutions

of higher education, however there are still conservative professors who take part in educating

students just as much as their counterparts. In regards to Talbot-Zorn and Kotas argument, these

individuals may find that the argument conflicts with their political ideology, particularly when

dealing with the authors credentials. Talbot worked on campaigns for three different democratic

representatives, while Kota worked under the Obama administration. Though it is irrefutable that

these authors are experienced, their association with a certain political party may be displeasing

to some readers. Likewise, they do use words such as brain drain which may be perceived as a

blow to the Republican party. Even mentioning fake news as a term could prove either
 Wadle 4

vitalizing or distasteful for the reader, depending on their political ideology. This is not to say

that unjust partisanship occurs at all times, in all situations, but it would be ignorant not to

address these potential setbacks to the argument. In addition, the authors present their case in an

extremely idealist light. This proposition will not be as simple to enact in practice as it is on

paper. Perhaps the readers own cynical nature towards the lack of logistical support that Talbot-

Zorn and Kota provide will cause them to be skeptical. On the flip side, one area where the

authors purposefully directed their readers was in the opening paragraphs. Talbot-Zorn and Kota

establish a sense of urgency by using words such as frenzy (1) and phrases like budget-cutting

zeal (2), and Congressional lobotomy (3). These words create a sense of disorder; fast-paced

and potentially harmful to the legislation Congress produces. Perhaps initiating this sense of

urgency in the conclusion as well would have a stronger impact on the audience. Instead, the

authors simply state in paragraph 14 that educating lawmakers is necessary if we are to craft

appropriate responses to pressing technical questions from cybersecurity to climate protection to

gene editing to nonproliferation. This list does present issues that are relevant to the country,

however no trigger words are present that stress the seriousness of the issue. Without some

justification that this matter deserves attention, the argument loses its potency. Lastly, in

paragraph 3, Talbot-Zorn and Kota claim that Americas legislative research agencies have 20

percent less staff than they did in 1979. Talbot-Zorn and Kota use this statistic to their own

advantage in hopes that readers will assume less equates to worse. This, however, is a hasty

generalization and does not necessarily entail a decline in the knowledge of lawmakers.

Overall, this article has an interesting proposition to offer Congress: educated and

competent citizens take part in the legislative process, in turn saving the government and

taxpayers millions on outdated research groups. Talbot-Zorn and Kota are able to effectively
 Wadle 5

communicate their argument by presenting themselves as credible sources and by providing

concrete logical appeals. Though there may be potential setbacks to parts of their argument,

whether it be credentials, ineffective word choice, or lack of producing a sense of urgency,

Talbot-Zorn and Kota have certainly not failed in their venture. These claims deserve to be

thrown into the political arena, and hopefully universities will be the ones to initiate the process,

full of knowledge and eager to educate.

Work Cited
 Wadle 6

Talbot-Zorn, Justin and Kota, Sridhar. Universities Must Educate Woefully Uninformed

Lawmakers. Wired. 28 Jan. 2017. https://www.wired.com/2017/01/universities-must-

help-educate-woefully-uninformed-lawmakers/.