Analysis of editorial logic.

Due to popular demand, a new article/editorial has been selected to be the victim of my intellectual powers.
Thus it begins by first reading this.

In the article, "Democrates and Schools", author Nicholas Kristof discusses the need for a better school system in order to combat poverty. Kristof describes that in the past, democrates have failed to properly help the US school system. This description appeals to tradition, but Kristof then goes to say that President Obama and education secretary Arne Duncan, are attempting to break this tradition. Further into the article, Kristof uses references and cites cases in which incompetent teachers (as defined by Kristof) are allowed to stay employed after displaying incompetency (once again subject to Kristof's sense of what appropriate teacher etiquette is). Kristof's article has many good points, but in some cases, he makes a statement, with no evidence backing his statement. Kristof also uses adjective-noun combinations such as, disadvantaged children and third-rate schools, in order to appeal to the emotions of readers. By showing examples of "bad" teachers, Kristof is attempting to lead reader's to believe that there is urgent changes that need to be made to school systems, but Kirstof fails to show the opposite side. Kristof also manages to leave out the percentage of good teachers vs bad teachers, and the citation in which this evidence is chosen.Kristof's point is made, but could use some more backing-up.