A Rhetorical Analysis of Jess Moinz's Call for a Managed Policy

Introduction

Which is more dangerous, the smell or the laser? A lot of students might say "laser" and try to prove they're right. But the smell is actually a serious job hazard too. Jess Moinz talks about this in his article, "What’s the Sense in No Scents?", published in 2019 in the Dalgazette. He says that scents are a big deal and need proper safety rules. Jess uses professional opinions, quotes from trusted sources, stats, and facts. He also uses ethos and logos to build his credibility. But, in the last part of his article, Jess uses pathos to appeal to readers' emotions, which weakens his tone. Jess's audience seems to be general online readers who might care about scent safety and management.

Scent Allergies and Medical Conditions

Jess starts his article by talking about a condition called "scent allergy" but then goes into the actual allergy process involving antibodies. He talks about medical conditions related to scent sensitivity, which can cause bad reactions to the air around you. According to Dalhousie's policy, Jess says scents can't be banned everywhere. To fix this, he suggests finding ways to manage scents. This suggestion reflects a balanced approach to the problem, recognizing that outright bans are often impractical. Jess's discussion opens a broader dialogue on how institutions can better accommodate those with scent sensitivities while maintaining a realistic approach to policy-making.

Building Credibility through Ethos

Jess uses many reliable sources to support his credibility and ethos appeal. He mentions "Dalhousie University’s safety policy", "a 2017 online survey in the journal of Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health", "staff in the late 80s at the Camp Hill Hospital", and "Plans for a clinic at the Dalhousie medical school" (Moinz, 2019). These sources, filled with facts and stats and other people's opinions, boost Jess's credibility. Jess also uses professional terms and theories to show he knows what he's talking about. By doing so, he establishes himself as a knowledgeable figure in the discussion of scent policies and their implications.

Logical Appeal through Logos

Besides ethos, Jess also uses facts, stats, and logical ideas to appeal to logos. He talks about scent sensitivity: “In the late 80s, staff at the Camp Hill Hospital had headaches, itching, and stomach problems. The air quality was bad, and staff complained about the smell and feeling dizzy when entering the hospital” (Moinz, 2019). Jess then gives reasons and reports: “Some said compounds used in the hospital were getting into air ducts. Beyond bad smells, the air had indoor pollutants like formaldehyde, phenol, sodium hydroxide, and smoke” (Moinz, 2019). Jess explains the harmful effects of odor sensitivity and the problem’s size: “Staff breathed it daily. Even after fixing air circulation, they had bad reactions to synthetic items or polluted air outside. It wasn’t just bad air for a while, but a long-term health issue” (Moinz, 2019). Jess’s analysis points out that MCS symptoms from specific incidents explain why Dal emphasizes scent policy. These data support Jess’s claim that scent sensitivity is a real issue. The details, through which Jess appeals to logos, show this issue is worth discussing.

Emotional Appeal and Its Impact on Tone

In the article's final part, besides logos, Jess appeals to pathos, which hurts his credibility. His intro has a few emotional sentences: “scents are outright banned”, even though “banning all scents everywhere isn’t realistic” (Moinz, 2019). This shows a shift from firm to helpless, weakening his tone. Words like “rather than”, “regardless”, “okay”, “normally”, “better”, and “clearer” (Moinz, 2019) imply Jess’s positive emotion and hope for better scent management. Jess returns to the topic of banning scent: reality, saying “no one smells of nothing”, “maybe we can find a way to make a scent management policy rather than a scent-free one. Either way, I support it; unlike the policy denying me access to lasers” (Moinz, 2019). This return to reality and thoughts proves the importance of a better safety policy and shows his expectations and support, an appeal to pathos. Though Jess professionally emphasizes scent seriousness to get audience attention, it's unprofessional to show uncertainty. So, Jess’s article weakens the reader’s affirmative tone and leaves them confused (no definite solutions).

Conclusion

To wrap it up, Jess uses effective appeals to show scent seriousness and stress the need for a scent policy. The reader can see the issue of scent-induced symptoms in their body. However, Jess’s shift from banning to re-making a scent policy and his tone from humor to sarcasm might not make the reader take the issue and solution seriously. Jess should provide ways to make a scent management policy instead of just saying: “either way, I support it; unlike the policy denying me access to lasers” (Moinz, 2019). A more structured and solution-oriented conclusion would enhance the effectiveness of his argument, potentially leading to actionable steps in scent management policy development.

References

Moinz, J. (2019). What’s the Sense in No Scents?. The Dalgazette. Retrieved from [URL]