Analysis Of Divided We Now Stand By Susan Page

Politics. What does it do to us and our views of people? In “Divided We Now Stand,” Susan Page, the current Washington Bureau Chief for USA today, explains just that. She spends the article giving readers studies and insights as to how people oppose simply because the party says to oppose, and she shows us how people feel about opposing parties and treat them as a result of partisan views. In this article, Page has many good points and strategies, but her argument could be improved. She begins the article by daringly challenging the views of readers, and she continues to do this throughout the article. She also helps her argument by establishing logos and ethos through examples and outside sources. However, she slowly diminishes this credibility

Bringing in outside sources is a good way to establish credibility with the reader if they don’t know your credentials, or if they’re not enough to gain the trust of your reader. Page gives many examples and statistics from surveys. She strategically places a strong point right after the introduction. The point came from a survey conducted by a Democratic and Republican pollster. In this survey, they show how people will go with any plan their party introduces, whether the actual beliefs of the party agree with it or not. This helps the reader recover from the challenging statement introduced in the beginning. As a result, this encourages the doubtful reader to continue and hear out the rest of the argument. Another smart strategy within listing this survey is establishing credibility. The information comes from a trustworthy Democratic and Republican source, which can help appeal to readers and help them relate. This helps the argument by establishing ethos and implying logos, while also showing the reader a sense of non-bias. At the end of the article Page brings it back to really sum up the article. She uses a quote from the Republican pollster. In this quote Whit Ayres says “many of us spend time around those who think differently than we do,” and he summarizes it by saying “at least we’re not always talking to people who think exactly like we do” (qtd. in Page 1A). This

While it is a good argument, some may find it troubling that no further explanation or evaluation is done when Page states that “Congress was less productive legislatively in 2012 than in any year since the end of World War II”(Page 1A). This information will shock a reader and bring up that question again. Why? However, this time Page does not answer. That statement is all she had to say about the subject. She gives no sources as to where this information came from, and she lacks any reason or proof of this. The reader never gets any answers to their many questions about this, leaving them dissatisfied. This takes away from the reader’s willingness to listen, because the author lacks a willingness to explain. This can hurt the argument by losing the reader’s interest, and destroying the author’s credibility. Another great, yet flawed, point comes from another survey. But the problem is, we don’t know where the survey comes from. The survey shows how Democrats and Republicans disagree with their own parties’ beliefs on controversial subjects. They instead agree with what the majority and those in power believe. However, the author again fails to list the source. This causes the reader to continue questioning the author’s credibility, and it weakens the reader’s support of their argument. This further damages the argument