Outside Reading: Editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/l10pets.html?ref=opinion
"Good Dog.  Good Health.  Is There a Link?" by W. Ron DeHaven
Jan 10, 2011

This was a very intriguing editorial to read as it was actually a response to a different editorial.  Written by the chief executive of the American Veterinary Medical Association, it clearly comes from a credible source.  The editorial responded to a previous article which said that a dog is not a doctor, and therefore does not relate to health in any way.  While DeHaven agreed that a dog cannot replace a doctor, he did say there a connection has been shown between a pet and good health.
DeHaven establishes a very strong point of view and a convincing argument right at the beginning by telling the audience that he is a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and therefore proving his credibility.  This creates a confident voice and a strong, formal tone throughout the article.  A tone like this causes the reader to automatically assume that the author knows what he is talking about and take him more seriously, even if they do not know for sure that he really deserves being taken seriously.
One technique used by DeHaven is the mature, yet not incredibly complicated diction.  Too much complexity in the diction makes a piece difficult for a reader to understand and is therefore more likely to be ignored, and very simple diction makes a reader believe that the author is not a very intelligent or trustworthy person.  Diction such as "analyze," "contributions," and "research" gets right to the point of the article without confusing the audience, and allowing any reader to understand right off the bat what the point of the article is.
Another technique used is DeHaven's way of expressing every opinion of his in third person: as he chief executive, he makes it clear that he is speaking for the entire association.  Many times within this article he mentions that "the association" believe this, and "we" research that.
This essay contains many strengths, as well as weaknesses.  A definite weakness is the lack of actual evidence.  Most of the information used in this editorial is heresay, and things that DeHaven wants the reader to believe.  Very little evidence actually comes from research.  The strengths of this essay include the appropriate level of diction and the mature, confidence voice.  Overall, this is a very convincing article, mostly based upon the confidence that the reader can see between the lines.
Although this is a very well written article, I do not believe that it would work as an AP essay.  The editorial is much too short, and the diction is not quite advanced enough to qualify it.  Also, a reader for the AP test would be looking for definite proof.