Distracting Writing and Weak Evidence That Only Convinces an Idiot Nation In Michael Moore’s “Idiot Nation,” Moore talks about how the American public is stupid and why he thinks so. He talks about the state of the educational system, and examines the reasons for its deterioration. Moore implies that Americans are stupid because the educational system is in a bad state. The author puts most of the blame for deteriorating education on politicians, corporations, and public perception of teachers and education. Politicians get a lot of the blame from Moore for squandering money instead of providing needed funds to underfunded schools. Moore also ironically states that some politicians criticize education while also refusing to provide important
…show more content…
For example, the evidence he uses as justification for students at colleges being ignorant is that “70 percent of the students...had never heard of the Voting Rights Act or President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiatives” (Moore 3-4). This is weak evidence, because knowledge of the topics he mentioned is just a small part overall of education. Instead of providing evidence that covers more than just a narrow part of the topic Moore is covering, he seems to be providing evidence that is convincing to him, but not necessarily convincing to readers. Because his evidence fails to convince most readers, Moore’s point is lost as the reader reads it, making the writing …show more content…
For example, when talking about how Americans have a tradition of being represented by ignorant people, he explains that “In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s nominee as ambassador to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was unable to identify either the country’s prime minister or its capital” (Moore 2). Again, this evidence is selective, and Moore only talks about how specific people are ignorant. Moore does not provide very many examples of ignorant people, and does not provide any example where more than one person was ignorant. The problem with this is that readers might question if this information is manipulated to enforce Moore’s point when it may not otherwise support his argument. As a result, Moore’s evidence fails to convince readers, which results in them missing his
For example, the evidence he uses as justification for students at colleges being ignorant is that “70 percent of the students...had never heard of the Voting Rights Act or President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiatives” (Moore 3-4). This is weak evidence, because knowledge of the topics he mentioned is just a small part overall of education. Instead of providing evidence that covers more than just a narrow part of the topic Moore is covering, he seems to be providing evidence that is convincing to him, but not necessarily convincing to readers. Because his evidence fails to convince most readers, Moore’s point is lost as the reader reads it, making the writing …show more content…
For example, when talking about how Americans have a tradition of being represented by ignorant people, he explains that “In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s nominee as ambassador to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was unable to identify either the country’s prime minister or its capital” (Moore 2). Again, this evidence is selective, and Moore only talks about how specific people are ignorant. Moore does not provide very many examples of ignorant people, and does not provide any example where more than one person was ignorant. The problem with this is that readers might question if this information is manipulated to enforce Moore’s point when it may not otherwise support his argument. As a result, Moore’s evidence fails to convince readers, which results in them missing his