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

Which is deadly, the smell or the laser? Many students may say “ laser” and try to prove that this is the right answer. The smell is also an occupational hazard seriously. The writer Jess Moinz argues in his article, “What’s the Sense in No Scents?”, published in 2019 in the Dalgazette that scents are serious stuff that needs to be managed by appropriate safety policy. Jess uses such methods as professional interpretation, quoting reputable sources, citing substantial statistics and facts, and utilizing ethos and logos appeals in order to build his credibility successfully. However, Jess’s pathos in the last section of this article, which appeals for emotions from the reader, weakens his tone. The sort of audience that Jess expects the audience are very general: that is, online readers who can be convinced to pay attention to scent safety and even manage scent.

Jess’s article begins with the description of a specific disease of “scent allergy” that has not resulted in an ascent but protein; then, Jess outlines the real process of allergy of antibodies’ roles. Jess continues to discuss some medical conditions that scent sensitivity is still a real matter, which may evoke in you some adverse reactions to the air around you. According to the implementation of Dal’s policy, Jess points out that scents cannot be banned anywhere. To solve this issue, Jess proposes to find some suitable ways to make a scent management policy.

Jess uses in his article various reliable sources, which can be used to support his credibility, emphasize his appeal to ethos, and build his argument: for example, “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” (qtd. in Jess). Such sources, which possess relative facts and statistics and reveal the opinions of others, can increase Jess’s credibility and support his study. Moreover, Jess uses professional terms and theoretical interpretation to prove that he has sufficient knowledge and deep thoughts regarding the issue.

Besides his appeal of ethos, Jess also uses various facts, statistics, and logical progressions of ideas whilst appealing to logos. He introduces scent sensitivity as follows: “In the late 80s, staff at the Camp Hill Hospital expedient symptoms of headaches, itching, and stomach problems. The problem seemed to be with the air quality, and the staff complained about the smell and disorienting effects of entering the hospital” (Jess, 2019). The introduction of facts is followed by Jess’s reasons and some relative reports: “Some reported that some of the compounds used around the hospital were getting into air ducts. Beyond the nasty smells, the air was circulating indoor pollutants. This included formaldehyde, phenol, sodium hydroxide and smoke” (Jess, 2019). Lastly, Jess explained the harmful effects of odor sensitivity and the magnitude of the problem: “Staff were breathing it in day after day. When they finally changed the air circulation, people were still experiencing adverse reactions after contact with synthetic items or polluted air outside of the hospital. Rather than the temporary problem of people breathing bad air, people were suffering from a long-term health condition” (Jess, 2019). Jess’s analysis leads to another fact: that is, the phenomenon that MCS symptoms can be caused by a specific incident exactly explains Dal’s emphasis on a scent policy. Logically speaking, these data exactly support Jess’s claim—that people have sensitivity for scent is indeed a substantial and authentic issue. The details, through which Jess builds an appeal to logos and aims to impress upon the reader, evince that such an issue is worth discussing.

In the final section of the article, apart from the appeal to logos, Jess stresses the appeal to pathos, which damages the strength of his credibility. Jess’s introduction is composed of a few emotionally-charged sentences, and he writes: “scents are outright banned”, even though “ banning all scents everywhere isn’t realistic” (Jess, 2019). The attitude hidden in these two sentences implies a shift from resolute to helpless and has an obvious, weakening tone. This view can also be suggested through such words and phrases as “rather than”, “regardless”, “okay”, “normally”, “better”, and “clearer” (Jess, 2019). All of these phrases imply Jess’s positive emotion and mind in order to manage scent in a better way, which also hints at the writer’s good hope for a better scent management policy. Jess returns his discussion to the subject of banning scent in his article: reality, and says there is “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” (Jess, 2019). Such a return to reality and thoughts can help prove the importance of a better safety policy; meanwhile, it reveals the writer’s expectations and support, which are also an appeal to pathos. Though the writer, in a professional manner, emphasizes the seriousness of the scent and aims to attract the attention of the audience, it is unprofessional for him to show the audience in an uncertain way. Consequently, Jess’s article weakens the reader’s affirmative tone and leaves the reader confused (no definitive ways to solve).

To conclude, Jess uses in his article some effective rhetorical appeals to demonstrate the seriousness of scent and stress the importance of making a scent policy. The reader can observe the issue that exists in both scent induced symptoms throughout their body. Nevertheless, Jess’s shift from banning to re-making a managed scent policy and his attitude from humor to sarcasm may not lead the reader to attach importance to the issue and the solution, as he has intended. Jess may be expected to provide some ways on how to make a scent management policy rather than merely to state: “either way, I support it; unlike the policy denying me access to lasers”(qtd, in Jess).