Who Tests the Testers?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/17/should-candidates-have-to-pass-a-civics-test/testing-candidates-would-be-a-disaster

This article was presented as one of a series of five articles, each which served as a response to the following controversial (and all too relevant) prompt: should presidential candidates be required to take (and pass) a civics exam? The thing about this article that caught my attention was that, while the other four articles only seemed to provide yes-or-no answers to the issue (more or less), the author of this article, Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, seems to take a more thoughtful approach. He chose not to answer the question with a focus on those who would be answering the questions – the presidential candidates- but rather, those who would be asking them. Another this which I liked about this article was Schnur's voice. Through his conversational tone, Schnur is able to slowly ease the reader into his was of thinking without having to seem authoritative. This came as a welcome change from the stereotypical "demanding" tone of opinion pieces

The final component of the article which interested me, and which I viewed as an important rhetorical strategy, was Schnur’s comparison between the tests that the candidates would have to take, and the SAT’s. In his article, Schnur states that “While striving for as unbiased a measurement as possible as part of the college admissions process is absolutely necessary, it’s questionable whether a similar standard for our political leaders could ever be developed or implemented in an impartial way. The only thing worse than electing an unqualified candidate would be empowering someone to decide who is qualified. .” This comparison made the article more relatable, which in turn made it more interesting and more easily understandable, at least in my opinion.