Megan Little's Instructor Page

a. Longaker accuses Horowitz of committing the same crime he opposed in his own article: emphasizing one side of an argument without mentioning the other.
~Horowitz claims that “courses in rhetoric don’t address their proclaimed subjects” while failing to mention the basic principles of rhetorical theory Longaker claims are covered in all classes.
b. Longaker makes a hasty generalization of college syllabi when he says any college student knows the syllabi is a mere preview of what will be covered in the course. In reality, college syllabi are very diverse and range between single pages and large packets.
c. Longaker mentions Horowitz’s lack of educational degree but fails to acknowledge Horowitz’s other applicable degrees or lack thereof.
d. Longaker uses the argument that Horowitz is trying to trick the general public in order to make money to appeal to people’s emotions. He wants people to feel like they are being tricked into enhancing Horowitz’s monetary success if they agree with his article. This argument supposes that Horowitz does not care about students, which is ironic because the teachers who impose their beliefs on students do not care about their wellbeing either.
e. Longaker is careful not to discredit conservative critics altogether because then he too would appear one-sided. If he left out the comment about some conservative critics being legitimate, he would significantly lose credibility and discredit his own platform.
f. Longaker’s last comment about giving Horowitz an F and suggesting that the reader should also is intended to appeal to the reader’s emotions and remind the reader of the teacher’s authority. He encourages the reader with a team mentality: join our team, not his.