In the Politico article, “U.S. officials push for sanctions on China over oil purchases from Iran”, Eliana Johnson discusses the current U.S. objective to put further sanctions in place in order to apply pressure on Iran. Although these additional sanctions are meant to contribute to an end goal of reaching peace, Johnson expresses her disapproval of the way the situation is being handled in her article. In the article, she describes the overall U.S. goal to put pressure on Iran as well as a summary of the events preceding China’s defiance of the original sanctions. This paper will analyze the effectiveness of Johnson’s argument by examining the rhetorical strategies and appeals that she utilized to enhance the validity of her claims regarding potential U.S. sanctions on China, which are the driving force behind her argument that these actions will likely result in increased tensions abroad. Despite the lack of supporting evidence and presence of fallacious arguments, Johnson’s article is effective due to her appeal to the audience’s fear and compelling language.  

One of the weaker aspects of Johnson’s article was that she makes various claims regarding the consequences of U.S. actions abroad that are unsupported by evidence and statistics. An example this absence of evidence lies within the following excerpt from the article: “It has had some success in persuading several of Iran’s largest consumers — India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey — to curb their purchases.” This statement is void of any statistical testimony as to what “some success” truly means in regard to this progress. By failing to provide more concrete details regarding the success of these sanctions, this conclusion is left up to the audience. If Johnson has provided legitimate statistics regarding the extent of the success of the sanctions, she would have established better control of the argument. However, in this case, this lack of evidence serves to make her argument seem stronger because it makes U.S. efforts seem less successful than they are, therefore making her argument more compelling. However, when Johnson states that further sanctions would “complicate trade talks between the two countries and further strain the relationship”, she is making an assumption without any evidence to support it. This makes her main argument weaker because the claim is hinging on nothing but speculation. Additionally, by failing to support why further sanctions would result in greater tension, it weakens the logos, a persuasive device that employs logic, of her argument since there is no logical explanation for this conclusion. Simply, Johnson’s failure to provide sufficient supportive evidence weakens her argument to an extent. 

Aside from her failure to provide sufficient evidence, Johnson loses credibility as she commits various logical fallacies, or premises that no not logically support the conclusion, within her argument. For example, the claim that “China hawks on the National Security Council are now pushing for the U.S. to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese entities, a move that would complicate trade talks between the two countries and further strain the relationship”, is illustrative of the slippery slope fallacy, when the arguer claims that a dire consequence will take place without evidence. In depth, Johnson is posing the assumption that if legislative action is taken against China, that it is inevitable that their relationship with the United States, including their trade relationship, will be subverted. In making this argument, this unsubstantiated assumption of dire consequences strips Johnson of her credibility as she does not make proper arguments. In addition, Johnson also commits the red herring fallacy, that is when the author goes off on a tangent that distracts from what’s really at stake, in the statement that “Trump has repeatedly slammed it as “the worst deal in history.” His aides, meanwhile, have struggled to explain how they intend to compel or induce Iran to engage in negotiations for a deal to replace it — beyond adding still more pressure”. In choosing to focus on Trump’s commentary and the supposed lack of explanation regarding government activity abroad, Johnson is distracting from her argument regarding the potential consequences of further sanctions. This tactic is also drawing the audience’s attention to the seeming lack of control of the officials in charge, also sidetracking her argument. As a result of these fallacies, Johnson detracts from her ethos, an appeal to the audience’s ethics,and discrets herself as a source.

Aside from the flaws within Johnson’s article, her argument is effective in raising her audience’s concern and draws their support by using fear tactics, or appeals to their emotion of fear. For example, by describing the situation between the U.S. and Iran as “amid the worsening standoff over Iran’s nuclear program”, Johnson builds the audience’s concern regarding the event. By creating a frightening scene within the minds of her readers, Johnson compels them to support her stance against furthered sanctions because it provoked a fear factor. On a similar note, Johnson appeals to the audience’s fear through language and the threat of impending tension by stating that “China’s continuing defiance would seem to undercut the Trump administration’s claim that its efforts to squeeze Iran are working”. The previous excerpt from Johnson’s article exemplifies her renewed application of this fear tactic, while also appealing to the audience’s pathos, or sense of emotion, because it heightens the stress of the situation by insinuating that it is only worsening. This statement is also building up her logos because she explains that China’s actions insinuate that the U.S. has been ineffective thus far. Simply, through her integration of the fear tactic, Johnson was able to compel her audience to support her argument. 

In addition to the incorporation of fear tactics, Johnson also makes her argument more compelling to the audience through the application of incriminating diction and tone. An example of this lies within the statement that U.S. officials “have struggled to explain how they intend to compel or induce Iran to engage in negotiations for a deal to replace it”. This tone makes the authorities involved in the matter seem incapable of solving the problem, therefore making their decisions seem less reasonable. By discrediting the officials in charge of easing the tensions and avoiding conflict, Johnson’s argument that their actions to increase sanctions seems more stable and reliable. Similarly, Johnson also uses a similar tone when referring to President Trump, “but many Iran analysts consider them politically impossible for Iranian leaders to accept — and Trump has at times brushed them aside”. This exemplifies the same tactic that was previously outlined because the tone and language clearly shows Johnson’s lack of respect for these official’s choices. In specific, the tone of the word “brushed” in regard to the handling of the situation sounds unprofessional, leading the audience to further support Johnson’s seemingly more “rational” point of view. This specific argument is particularly well oriented for audience members who are already displeased with the current political status and those who oppose President Trump. To summarize, through the application of loaded language and condemning diction, Johnson’s argument became more effective. 

In conclusion, Johnson’s argument was overall effective, regardless of her inclusion of various fallacies, lack of evidence and loaded language. Her stance regarding the U.S. decision to push for more sanctions is against this action on the grounds that it will only incite further conflict. In order to compel her audience of this stance, Johnson uses faulty logic to make the situation seem worse as well as discrediting the officials in charge of the matter. While her incorporation of logical fallacies takes away from her credibility, Johnson’s argument is still effective due to the emotional response she evokes from her audience, in favor of her argument.