ADHD a Rhetorical Essay

ADHD is an exceedingly real diagnosis for many children in the United States. Are we over diagnosing our little ones just to keep from dealing with unpleasant behavior? “ On average 1 of every 10 to 15 children in the United States has been diagnosed with the disorder, and 1 in every 20 to 25 uses a stimulant medication” (Mayes, Bagwell, & Erkulwater, 2008). Several believe that virtually all ADHD diagnoses are retractable with appropriate discipline of children instead of being so hasty in medicating them. The material found on the CDC website describes facts about ADHD, it clarifies the signs, symptoms, types, causes, diagnosis tools, and treatment forms of ADHD. What the article neglects to go into is the reality that there is a considerable amount of controversy surrounding ADHD. The CDCs usage of ethos, pathos, and logos and by what method the website manipulates them to affect the reader will be the basis of this paper.

The ethos, which is the reputation of the CDC, is one of the core motives behind someone being confident that the information found on the website is accurate. The CDC is a government organization that is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and has remained in operation for over sixty years. With government support and years of assistance to the nation, the CDC is a dependable source. With their credibility, the audience would anticipate the CDC website to be unbiased when presenting facts concerning ADHD. In reading the webpage, “Facts about ADHD” not every one of the truths are included. ADHD has remained a controversial topic between parents, teachers, clinicians, media, and policymakers for decades. In the “International Journal of Early Childhood” it states, “Controversy about A...

... middle of paper ...

...ot want their loved ones on stimulants; this could cause feelings of despair. Their use of logos is insensitive to the audience because false hope of a cure is created, medication and behavior therapy is viewed as the way to control ADHD, and their speculation of what causes ADHD is unfounded.

In conclusion, the site seems to be credible, with factual information. Having a son with ADHD, I know first-hand that there are many truths in the article. However, the article’s broad and could cause a lot of confusion, the facts are not well rounded leaving the impression that they are biased, and they do not explain the information in a caring way, which is insensitive. Their use of ethos, pathos, and logos on the website creates confusion in the reader. Just because the CDC states their findings as facts does not mean we do not have the right to expect more out of them.