Regarding an event that occurred in 2014 regarding the Obamacare bill, two articles emerged that highlighted several arguments both for and against the bill. While Paul Sission spoke in favor of the bill, Andrea Tantaros spoke against it. Comparing the two Paul Sission provides the more effective argument by providing a collected tone and calm writing style, while Tantaros' argumentative style focuses on anger and opinions. Sission's article was more effective in reaching readers because its appreciative but neutral tone towards the Affordable Care Act and more fact-based writing style attracts more readers than Tantaros' article which is more focused on emotional arguments rather than logical arguments. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Andrea Tantaros is a right-wing Republican woman whose audience consists primarily of other Republican viewers. In Tantaros' article, she introduces the argument that “Democrats [are] declaring war on work” (Tantaros 1). He points to the abundance of job losses as a result of the Obamacare bill, citing the Congressional Budget Office that the Obamacare bill creates an incentive for people to stop working. He goes on to describe how the Congressional Budget Office said it expects the bill will produce a huge wave of people leaving their jobs in the lower-middle class area, in favor of doing less because they are able to receive more financial help. He goes on to describe how Democrats are creating a war on jobs by allowing people to choose whether or not they want to work. He argues that work shouldn't be fun and that it's necessary. He emphasizes that the working class will have to shoulder the burden that the Democrats have imposed on the economy, just because they want to help citizens who are not working. Tantaros goes on to state that President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, and most incumbent liberals “don't care about the success of the economy” (Tantaros 3). He goes on to describe how liberals don't care about the staggering unemployment rate or creating growth in the economy. “Put simply, their primary goal is to make people dependent on government,” Tantaros said, arguing that liberals view job cuts as a blessing (Tantaros 3). Tantaros continues to offer one possible outcome of the lack of working men, men will no longer be likely to date or get married. His argument is based on the fact that stable, successful men are more likely to want to marry and start a family as providers. If men no longer want to marry and start families, women will remain unhappy. His final argument concerns Obama's hesitation to pass the employer mandate, which Tantaros said would give employers the opportunity to keep more people on the job. He concludes by reminding us that Obamacare reform and liberals are waging a war on jobs by providing workers with a way out to stay employed. Now that a brief summary of Tantaros' argument has been provided, it is possible to analyze the specific devices she used in her writing. When we take a look at the writing style Tantaros uses, it becomes apparent that much of the style he uses is opinions expressed as arguments. A good portion of the article is just Tantaros giving his own take on the topic in an attempt todivert the intended public from expressing their outrage at the Affordable Care Act. Furthermore, Tantaros' tone throughout the article focuses on anger and indignation. He's intentionally just trying to make his readers feel one or both of those emotions. The combination of angry and highly opinionated writing poses a threat to an effective argument reaching readers, because instead of making strong, fact-based arguments Tantaros focuses on bashing the Democratic Party. For politically literate Republican viewers, the lack of factual content in his writings may begin to frustrate them. So not only is Tantaros putting readers at risk with his argumentation style, but he has a less effective argumentation style due to his poor use of style and tone in it. Paul Sission is a left-wing Democrat whose readership consists mostly of other Democrats. In his article Sission begins by discussing the specifics of the incentives introduced 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, leading to approximately “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 November's midterm elections. Sission then explains that the White House has clearly stated that the reason for the reduction in jobs is not because businesses have had to cut back, but because people have 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 to have more freedom to retire earlier than they thought possible, as well as allow people the freedom to decide to leave the jobs for which they are present only because of the health insurance benefit. Sission then begins to discuss the specifics of the Affordable Care Act, starting with the problems and fixes of the website that people would sign up for, concluding with an estimate of the number of people who would sign up and an estimate of the budget costs . Sission continues to provide insight into the bill from economists stating, in a general sense, that there is no set way in which the bill will affect the American economy because there are “too many assumptions” (Sission 3). Sission concludes 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 healthcare, and for those lower class citizens who will finally be able to afford healthcare. treatment. Sission agrees that the main positive effect lies in the idea that Americans are given the freedom to choose the lifestyle they want thanks to the flexibility they will have with affordable health insurance. In his article Paul Sission argues that the Affordable Care Act will help increase the amount of Americans who are able to pursue their career dreams rather than simply have another job. Sission's writing style consists of long, eloquent sentences packed with factual information. Sission focuses on stating the facts of the situation before making a clear and logical argument. The tone of his article is calm and collected, the exact opposite of Tantaros' article. Sission is more effective at conveying his message because he lightly inserts his arguments among the factual information he has found.