The given article represents the writing by Naomi Schaefer Riley for the Wall Street Journal. The journalism genre demands expressiveness and creativity; thus, some writers mix models to get more fruitful texts, and this article is no exception. In general, the author seems to be utilizing Toulmin’s argument mainly as the aim is to perceive that the claim made (modern American education does not serve the society in the right way) is veracious. Therefore, further writing is an attempt to find the most substantial evidence.
The writer’s position on the issue stands clear from the start. The article lacks the purpose of representing opposing views. Therefore, there is no background to the problem: the author proceeds with evidence. Nonetheless, the classical model helps the writer to persuade the reader. Balanced argumentations with authority quotes support the claim backed by the expert, Hirsch, opinion; his competence in the sphere is proved by giving his works’ background. According to the classical model, research data, survey information, and experiment results add credibility to the arguments so that the claim is highly persuasive.
The conclusion to the article is also emphatic and persuading, as the classical model demands. However, the opposing opinion is hardly visible in the paper. Despite mentioning the opposing perspective of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the author avoids voicing credible arguments for the other opinion. Instead, there is a rebuttal based on the claim that the 21st-century American schools’ context does not correspond to the other perspective. Therefore, there is the re-statement of the problem at the end of an article depicting that the current way of education is entirely wrong. Thus, mixing different styles attracts the reader’s attention. A classical argument is a potent tool for persuasion, and the Toulmin model adds emotion and vitality to the writing.