Body: 2-3 pages

The article's description of a rhetorical situation is particularly compelling considering

the way it integrates purpose, audience, subject, author, and context. Richard Arum and Mr.

Stevens, both of whom have extensive knowledge of inclusiveness in social frameworks such

as education. Mr. Stevens majored in sociological research at the Stanford Graduate School

of Education. On the other hand, Mr. Arum's background includes teaching at the University

of Josipa Roksa in Irvine, California, where he specialized in sociology and education. Their

intended audience consists of those intrigued by affirmative action and college access in

general, as well as politicians and educators. Besides, the Supreme Court's ruling invalidating

universities' use of race as a factor in admissions serves as a textual imperative. In light of the

court's ruling and its potential effects on racial equality in higher education, the authors felt

compelled to offer their thoughts.

Moreover, the article is written in the style of an editorial and published in a

newspaper. It takes on an argumentative tone as the writers argue that attention should be

shifted from highly selective universities to more broadly accessible ones. The writers write

in an informed and convincing style backed by research and analysis. For instance, they

demonstrate that the percentage of all Asian youngsters who attended a school with an

admission rate under 25 percent is over three times the amount of Black, Hispanic, and White

youngsters (par. 3). The approach is candid and scholarly, as the duo lean on their knowledge

as sociologists to make their point.

In addition, the writers skillfully employ the aspects of the rhetorical context that

examine the credibility of their article. Firstly, the material is produced by two academics,

one at the University of California, Irvine, and the other at the Stanford Graduate School of

Education. It provides legitimacy to the work since the writers are specialists in sociology

and education. Their degrees and roles as academics boost the text's credibility. Besides, the
material is published in The New York Times, a respected and highly regarded publication.

Being included in such a journal contributes to the writers' credibility and their claims. Again,

the text's objective is calling for a change in concentration in the sphere of college education.

The authors contend that affirmative action, although vital, had minimal influence on most

undergraduates and that the recent decision by the Supreme Court to knock down race-

conscious applications provides a chance to divert emphasis to less competitive schools. They

try to convince the audience that the route to improving racial justice in American higher

education is enhancing the quality and financial standing of the majority of universities that

serve an increasingly diverse student population.

Moreover, although the text does not explicitly express sub-claims, it suggests

multiple elements to persuade readers of its thesis. First, the notion indicates that only a tiny

percentage of students accepted to highly selective schools benefitted from affirmative action.

Second, the text implies that only a minority of highly selective colleges would be

significantly affected by the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down race-conscious

applications. Most Black and Hispanic students go to schools with low admission rates, the

book concludes, suggesting that affirmative action had little to no effect on their college

selections.

In addition, the writers use logical and emotional appeals to persuade the reader. The

article employs the ethos strategy by detailing the writers' academic pursuits. The writers are

acknowledged as academics and sociologists from renowned universities, as mentioned

initially. Statistics on college enrollment by acceptance rate and cost comparisons per student

are only two examples of the facts and statistics used to support the text's claims. The writers

cite California's U.C.L.A. and Pomona, a private liberal arts college, as examples of

institutions spending lavishly per student. The argument for a fairer schooling system is based

on the application of rational argumentation supported by such statistical data. The material is
predicated mainly on reason and evidence, yet emotional triggers are included. Emotions

associated with justice and equality in education, for instance, can remain evoked by

mentioning the effect on Black and Hispanic students who dream of accessing elite colleges

and the desire for a more inclusive and equitable educational system (par. 3). Thus, the article

employs a mix of ethos, logos, and understated pathos to convey its message and convince

the readers of the significance of expanding access to high-quality education outside the

realm of the elite.

Ultimately, two main points led me to the conclusion that the writers advocate for

structural reforms to attain educational equity. First, the authors claim that only a few

students profited from affirmative action by gaining admission to highly selective colleges.

That shows that many students of color still need to overcome considerable obstacles that

affirmative action, although helpful for those admitted with its help, could not solve. Second,

most Black and Hispanic youngsters attend schools that approve more than 75 percent of

their applications. It highlights that these less selective schools play a critical role in offering

the opportunity for higher learning for various student groups. In order to achieve racial

justice in colleges and universities, the authors propose that attention must be paid to

upgrading these institutions.