Is This Really a Good Arguement?

I chose an editorial piece from September 25 in the Chicago Tribune. The author argues that the law Mayor Daley is putting into effect around Wrigley Field saying that bars can’t sell alcohol past the 7th inning isn’t a good law. The law would just be enforced during the playoffs and is optional for the bars. But the editorial states, “Those who don't go along with the "voluntary" cutoff might have a little trouble when it's time to renew their liquor licenses, Daley hints”, implying that it isn’t optional. Although alcohol sales would be allowed again once the game ended, the author still disagrees with the law. He states that the reason why a fan would watch a game from a bar stand instead of inside the field is because that way they can but alcohol after the 7th inning. The author used many different strategies to argue his point. A few that stuck out to me, though, was his target of audience, use of ethos, and use of logos. The audience is obviously supposed to be Chicago natives or cubs fans, because he says, “Cubs fans have waited 100 years for a World Series title. Come October, they’re going to need a beer to celebrate”. This targets the Cubs fans because it uses emotion (pathos) to make them agree that once they win, they should be allowed to celebrate with alcohol. Other fans from other cities wouldn’t know the pain cubs fans have endured in recent years and the excitement taking place this year. The author also uses ethos, which is apparent when he states both sides of the argument. Although the author is against the new law by the mayor, he still uses statements like, “We understand where the mayor is coming from” to create a sense of trust with the reader. The last tool the author uses is logos; in the beginning of the editorial, the side the author is taking is a little unclear. He doesn’t use a clean cut thesis in the beginning, and starts the editorial being able to go either way on the issue. As the piece goes on, his argument becomes clearer and clearer, then, at the end where he clearly states, “they’re going to need a beer to celebrate…they shouldn’t have to leave Wrigleyville to find one”. This makes the claim very plausible because nothing is too farfetched. He gains your trust in the beginning by not choosing an immediate side, and then brings you in with his thesis at the end. I thought this was a very well written editorial.