Regarding an event that occurred in 2014 regarding the Obamacare bill, two articles surfaced focusing on different arguments, both for and against the bill. While Paul Sission argued in favor of the bill, Andrea Tantaros opposed it. Comparing the two, Paul Sission provides the more effective argument by providing a collected tone and calm writing style, while Tantaros' argumentation style focuses on anger and opinions. Sission's article was more effective in reaching readers because her appreciative but neutral tone toward the Affordable Care Act and more fact-based writing style appealed to more readers compared to Tantaros' article which is more focused on emotional arguments rather than logical arguments. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Andrea Tantaros is a right-wing Republican woman whose audience is primarily made up of other Republican viewers. In Tantaros' article, she introduces the argument that "Democrats are [declaring] war on work" (Tantaros 1). She points to the abundance of job losses resulting from the Obamacare bill, citing the Congressional Budget Office which says the Obamacare bill causes people to stop working. She goes on to describe how the Congressional Budget Office said it predicted the bill would lead to a huge wave of people leaving their jobs in the lower and middle classes, in favor of doing less because they are able to receive more financial aid. She goes on to describe how Democrats are creating a war on work by allowing people to choose whether or not they want to work. She argues that work is not supposed to be fun and that it is necessary. She emphasizes that the working class will have to bear the burden that the Democrats have imposed on the economy, simply because they want to help citizens who are not working. Tantaros goes on to make this statement: President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and most liberals in power "don't care about the success of the economy" (Tantaros 3). She continues to describe how liberals don't care about the staggering unemployment rate or creating growth in the economy. “Simply put, their main goal is to make people dependent on government,” Tantaros said, making the argument that liberals view work reduction as a blessing (Tantaros 3). Tantaros continues to offer a possible consequence of the lack of working men, men will no longer be inclined to date or marry. His argument is based on the fact that successful and stable men are more likely to want to marry and start a family as breadwinners. If men no longer want to marry and start a family, women will be unhappy. His final argument focuses on Obama's hesitance to adopt the employer mandate, which Tantaros said would give employers an opportunity to keep more people on the job. She ends by reminding us that Obamacare and liberals are waging a war on work by offering workers the chance to keep their jobs. Now that a brief summary has been given of Tantaros's argument, the specific devices she uses in her writings can be analyzed. When we look at the writing style Tantaros uses, it becomes apparent that much of the style she uses is stylized opinions likearguments. Much of the article is simply Tantaros giving his own opinion on the subject in an attempt to prevent his target audience from expressing outrage over the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, Tantaros' tone throughout the article focuses on anger and indignation. She intentionally only tries to make her readers feel one or both of these emotions. The combination of angry and strongly opinionated writing poses a threat to the effectiveness of the arguments reaching readers, because instead of making solid arguments based on facts, Tantaros focuses on denigrating the Democratic Party. For politically literate Republican viewers, the lack of factual content in his writings might begin to frustrate them. So, not only does Tantaros endanger readers with his argument style, but his argument style is less effective due to his poor use of style and tone throughout his work. Paul Sission is a left-wing Democrat whose readers are primarily other Democrats. In his article, Sission begins by discussing the specifics of the incentives put in place by Obamacare according to the Congressional Budget Office. Sission points out that the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the new bill would “reduce the total number of hours worked” by the average worker, resulting in “about 800,000 fewer jobs by 2021” (Sission 2). Sission then points out that Republican lawmakers used this information as a tactic to gain seats in the November midterm elections. Sission then explains that the White House clearly stated that the reason for the reduction in jobs was not because companies had to reduce their workforce, but because people voluntarily agreed to leave their jobs. Sission goes on to discuss the White House's explanation of how the Affordable Care Act would allow people more freedom to retire earlier than they thought possible, as well as giving people the freedom to decide to leave jobs they are only there for. due to health insurance benefits. Sission then begins discussing the specifics of the Affordable Care Act, starting with problems and fixes to the website people would go to to sign up, then concluding with an estimate of how many people would sign up this way than the estimated budget costs. Sission continues to provide information on the bill to economists stating, generally speaking, that there is no specific way the bill will affect the US economy because there is “just too many assumptions” (Sission 3). Sission ends the article by discussing all the positive possibilities the law would have for middle- and lower-class citizens who will now be able to pursue their dreams without worrying about health care, and for lower-class citizens who will finally be able to afford health care. care. Sission agrees that the major positive effect is the idea that Americans have the freedom to choose the lifestyle they want because of the flexibility they will have with affordable health insurance. In his article, Paul Sission makes the argument that the Affordable Care Act will help increase the number of Americans who can pursue their career dreams rather than just having another job. Sission's writing style consists of long, eloquent sentences filled with factual information. Sission focuses on presenting the facts of the situation before presenting an argument.