MY PAPER A (from the viewpoint of my audience)

ARGUMENT:
A: Adopting a stricly Neutralist approach
B: is insufiicient when treating a child with language disorders
Reason: because a Neutralist approach alone does not provide therapy conducive to the bettering of a child's social communication.
IA: Whatever does not better a child's social communication in treatment is an insufficient method

GOAL: That new SLP's adapt both a neutralist and normativist approach to speech therapy.

AUDIENCE: Speech language pathologists recently entering the field.  The author seems to portray the audience as fairly inexperienced, as many explanations of terms and concepts are given.  These SLP's seem to be at the point that they have yet to decide on what approach they want to adopt, or have been taught and heavily rely on standardized testing in order to understand a child's language abilities.

HOW IT IS MADE:
The author through ethos establishes herself as a credible source on the information being presented.  Her representation of the Neutralist approach and tactics, such as standardized and norm-referenced testing seems to be quite fair and accurate, giving credit to it's positive points.  She used very little pathos, but logos is another tool used often to show that the information being presented clearly supports her point.  However, she does not reveal a logical solution until the very end of her paper.

EFFECTIVE?
Her knowledge and evidence supporting her arguments lack a little bit of solidity, however the information she presented clearly showed that the Neutralist approach alone was not sufficient.