preview

Rhetorical Analysis: The Red Team

Decent Essays

Christine Todd Whitman chose to write this op-ed months into the Trump presidency at a time when many natural disasters plague the country. In it she addresses both the administration and her fellow Republicans, many of whom do not view climate change as a threat. Whitman’s principal grievance with Scott Pruitt, the current director of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), is his creation of a “red team” to research an opposing view to the scientific consensus on climate change. In her op-ed, Christine Todd Whitman condemns the way Scott Pruitt runs the E.P.A. and tries to convince the reader that climate change is a tangible threat. Whitman makes it clear that her criticism is not that of a lay person or a contrarian but comes from experience and a common worldview. Both Scott Pruitt and Whitman are …show more content…

from her experience as the head of the E.P.A. Her principal critique of the Red Team is that it is bad science. Whitman employs logos when she cites a study which says greenhouse gases are to climate change what smoking is to cancer and describes the Red team’s method of researching to prove an opinion “the opposite of how science works” (Whitman). Whitman strongly criticizes the red team as a misguided and deeply flawed pursuit when she says, “The red-team idea is a waste of the government’s time, energy and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible governance” (Whitman). This critique of the E.P.A.’s red team is best exemplified when Whitman alludes to the president’s former career to appeal to pathos when she says “Policy should always be rooted in unbiased science. The E.P.A. is too important to treat like a reality TV show. People’s lives and our country’s resources are at stake” (Whitman). Whitman uses the connotation of reality shows to characterize Pruitt’s actions as being unintelligent and having a detrimental effect on

Get Access