Blog 30: Analysis of "Letter to the Honorable Janice Brewer"

A picture of former Arizona Governor Janice Brewer.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Jan_Brewer.jpg/506px-Jan_Brewer.jpg

Tone of Letter

Kassandra tries to convey a formal and respectful tone in her letter to Governor Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona. The governor is very busy and does not free much free time to read every letter that people send to her. Governor Brewer probably has an intern or employee reviewing her letters organizing them into piles by importance. In order to have her letter noticed, Kassandra must sound like a reasonable person which is where the respectful and formal tones come into play. Kassandra acknowledges some of Governor Brewer's points with phrases such as "I understand...", "As you have rightly pointed out...", and "as you have endorsed before". She also thanks the governor. The technique help the reader see Kassandra's letter appear serious and genuine. If Kassandra denounces Governor Brewer, the governor may never get to see the letter or even pay attention to it.

Conventions of Genre

The letter follows the format of a business letter. A shift in paragraph is not indicated by an indent, but a space. Kassandra seems to avoid contractions and abbreviations with the only exception being the AHCCCS in parenthesis. The paragraphs seem to have only a few sentences with the maximum number in one paragraph being six. The letter begins with an introduction of the writer and ends with a thank you where the author offers her contact information. Because the formatting is formal, the genre is suitable for Kassandra's argument.

Ethos

Kassandra establishes her ethos in the introductory paragraph and at the end where she says "sincerely" then her name. She also adds to her ethos by acknowledging Governor Brewer's ideas and previous statements. When Kassandra introduces herself as a student at the University of Arizona, she does not effectively increase her credibility. The fact that she is a student makes her appear educated, but it does not mean that she is necessarily knowledgeable about healthcare budget cuts. Her next attempt to establish ethos at the closing does not contribute much to her ethos either. Being a student in the College of Science is commendable, but again is not relevant to the argument. Kassandra does a better job of establishing her credibility by acknowledging Governor Jan Brewer's views. Doing so shows that Kassandra did her research.

Overall Claim

Kassandra's overall claim is that the governor should not cut $1 billion from Medicaid. She provides a brief overview of the negative effects of cutting spending and then proposes three alternatives that would reduce Medicaid costs. She includes several relevant statistics such as "Cutting the state budget will cause...250,000 people to lose coverage". The rest of her argument is based off of logical proposals which can be questionable since they are not supported by research or surveys.

Call-to-Action

Kassandra wants the governor to prevent the $1 billion budget cut and instead consider her alternatives to replace the cuts. She goes into some detail, but not enough to give the governor or the governor's employee a clear idea of how to implement these proposals. On the other hand, the vague proposals may allow the governor flexibility if Governor Brewer wants to use Kassandra's ideas. Overall, it is clear that Kassandra wants Governor Brewer to stop the Medicaid budget cut.

Suggestions

Kassandra could have made a separate paragraph for her first approach to make it more evident. She combines the money saved from the budget cuts with her first proposal of "setting a spending limit" into one paragraph. She makes her first proposal difficult to notice. Her transitions are also rough in some parts of the letter. One example of this is near the end of her second paragraph: "These cuts target the most vulnerable population: the disabled, the elderly, and the needy. Another area of concern is the effect of the budget cuts on Medicaid hospitals." The paragraph ends there. The abrupt change in subjects with no elaboration on the "effect of...cuts on...hospitals" does not serve much of a purpose other than to bring up another point. Kassandra may want to either take out that last sentence or elaborate on it.

Overall, Kassandra's approach to the public argument is not perfect, but lies somewhere above satisfactory. She is able to convey her point in a concise and straightforward manner, but could edit her letter more to be more specific and smooth.

After reading this, I have somewhat of an idea of what I want to write about in my public argument.