Today I’ve taken my first year composition class to hear a talk by state assemblyman Alberto Torrico about AB656, a bill that would create a tax on oil and gasoline produced in the state, to fund public education.

Logical arguments offered in favor of funding higher ed:

• for every dollar spent on higher ed., more than $4 are returned to the state economy
• in 2025, California will be short a million college graduates needed for the workforce
• more spent on prisons than on higher ed., and that system has failed.
  • 70% recidivism
  • 60% functionally illiterate
  • no rehab/education programs
  • #students under a third grade reading level predicts prison levels.
• Other states all have this kind of tax.
• Oil companies are prohibited from passing on the extra cost to consumers
• Oil companies are making record profits

Torrico’s ethos:

• son of immigrant parents–Mexican and Japanese
• first generation college graduate
• has focused on socially progressive issues aimed to help those in the most difficult circumstances.
• graduated from public higher ed in California

Emotional arguments, or pathos:

• fairness–in several ways.  –Shades into an ethical argument as well.
• appeal to what California is all about–creating a better life, better future
• Wide public support — maybe another form of ethical argument as well

Exhortation: Sign the petition

In our next class we’ll analyze the above argument all together, and talk about how to evaluate it.