The Taxi Industry: A Rhetorical Analysis

With the introduction of the modern ride-sharing app Uber, the ethical issue of whether the initiative should be used in favour of the more traditional taxi has been subjected to debate. Wendy Squires wrote an article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on the 30th of May 2015 titled “Why I hail Uber and damn Taxis”. Her contention was that the Taxi industry is a ‘disgrace’ and terribly outdated, and wrote in an informal, yet very attacking tone. In contrast to Squires article, a reader named Andrew posted a comment on ‘The Age Online’ on the 10th of September 2015, contesting that he too is a supporter of Uber, yet he wrote in a much more logical and reasonable tone. ‘The Courier’ cartoonist H. Payne also shared their viewpoint on the issue, with

Squires began her piece writing very colloquially, addressing the taxi industry; “Well, aren’t you in a right pickle”, and the telling the organisation that they “have treated me like poo on a shoe over the years”. In doing this, Squires intends to add humour into her article, appealing to those who are seeking a ‘light read’, as well as condemning the taxi industry for the poor treatment of their customers. In addition, Squires uses several anecdotes to empathise the pitiful way in which the taxi industry has treated her previously. She refers to be asked if she “wanted to pay the fare in money or sex”, as well as a service operators underwhelming response of “what do you want me to do about it?” when Squires pre-booked cab failed to arrive. Squires’ experiences with the taxi industry demonstrates why she decides to support Uber, and furthers her contention. To conclude the article, the author attacks the taxi industry, saying “thanks for nothing”, providing a defiant finish to a piece that savagely brandishes an institution that Squires labelled “an

The comment details the steps taken if you happened to leave something in a cab; in particular the inconvenience of finding the item after the driver is required to take it to a police station. The downfall of this is the fact it is impossible for the customer to know which station they can collect their item from, as it is left “wherever they’re near”. Here, Andrew uses sarcasm to underline the flaw in the taxi industry’s policy on lost items, again proving the organisation is rather outdated. He then juxtaposes this against Uber, where customers have “phone record of the driver”, allowing those who have left something in their travels to simply “give them a ring and ask about your things”. Through the use of reason and logic, Andrew strengthens his contention and support for Uber, as well as stating “one of the many reasons the taxi industry shoots itself in the