The article dissects claims about failing schools, skills gaps, and the importance of STEM education, contending that they are based on cherry-picked data and fallacious reasoning promoted by privately funded think tanks and interest groups to justify the neoliberal economic order; it suggests that official data and lived experiences reveal an economy rigged against workers, with the solution being collective action rather than more credentialism.

However, the argument sometimes oversimplifies opposing views and relies on some cherry-picked data as well, which may undermine its broader validity.

cherry-picking • The text selectively presents data that supports the argument that US student achievement is not declining, while ignoring or dismissing data that might present a more complex or contradictory picture.

NAEP scores show a gradual increase in American students' reading and math achievement during the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.

For example, the author does not mention that for international comparisons, the main assessment is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PISA tests 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy every 3 years across dozens of countries and economies, and the US has not ranked very well in mathematics for quite some time: ​

• In 2018 (most recent study available) the US ranked 37th out of 79 countries/education systems
• In 2015, 40th out of 72 countries/education systems
• In 2012, 36th out of 65 countries/education systems
• In 2009, 31st out of 65 countries/education systems ​

The US average math score was slightly below the overall average score in each of these years listed.

This helps to illustrate that the author was highly selective in choosing which statistics to present to the reader.

1. loaded language • There appears to be some loaded language used in the text that carries subjective or emotionally charged connotations:

1. "mind-numbing ubiquity" - This phrase used to describe the prevalence of certain pronouncements has a negative, dismissive tone.
2. "beleaguered-sounding headline" - The word "beleaguered" implies the headline has an embattled or hard-pressed quality.
3. "scolds" - Describing an op-ed as "scolding" casts it in a condescending, lecturing light.
4. "soul-crushing accountability measures" - The term "soul-crushing" is a heavily loaded way to characterize accountability measures in education.
5. "baseless claims" - Labeling certain claims as "baseless" is a subjective judgment laden with bias.
6. "frightening facts and figures" - The word "frightening" injects an emotional slant to the presentation of data.
7. "hand-wringing" - This term used to describe concerns raised has a dismissive, mocking connotation.

So in several instances, the author uses language that injects subjective negativity, mockery, or emotional loading when characterizing the arguments and data of those promoting the education/skills gap narrative.

2. appeal to motive with weasel words • In the paragraph below, the words "may be" can be considered weasel words, used to make an appeal to motive more palatable.

The H-1B is a temporary work permit that's entirely at the mercy of employers (as Kraus notes, former secretary of labor Ray Marshall once described the H-1B employment relationship as "indentured"). This attractively tight form of labor discipline may be the real reason why employers have persistently lobbied for H-1B expansion.

Weasel words are qualifiers or equivocal language used to create an impression of substance or plausible deniability, while actually lacking in definitive meaning or commitment. By saying "This attractively tight form of labor discipline may be the real reason..." the author is using the vague qualifier "may be" to make a claim about employers' motives, while avoiding definitively stating it as fact.

The use of "may be" allows the author to speculate about hidden motives, but also provide an out by not committing fully to that claim. It allows for plausible deniability if challenged, as the author can fall back on not making a definitive assertion. At the same time, the implication of an ulterior motive is still put forth. So in this case, "may be" functions as weasel words that make an insinuation about employers' real reasons, without being fully accountable to backing up that claim as absolute truth.

By claiming the "real reason" is about exerting control over workers, the author is dismissing the stated motives and instead attributing a hidden, ulterior motive. This is a type of appeal to motive fallacy, where an argument is criticized based on the perceived motives of the person making it rather than addressing the substantive merits of the argument itself. Unless the author provides direct evidence that employers are motivated for H-1Bs primarily by this labor discipline motive, it is speculative reasoning that commits the appeal to motive fallacy.

3. straw man • The author seems to oversimplify and narrowly characterize the potential arguments made by employers when lobbying for H-1B visa expansion.

...employers have persistently lobbied for H-1B expansion. But they've built their case by referencing baseless claims about the supposedly inadequate supply of American STEM graduates.

Employers are more likely to point to a lack of qualified applicants for specific job roles and positions, rather than just make a blanket claim about an inadequate supply of STEM graduates in general. Some more nuanced arguments employers could make include: ​

1. Lack of experienced candidates for certain specialized roles that require specific skills/expertise.
2. Inability to find applicants with relevant project experience for the particular positions they need to fill.
3. Shortage of applicants meeting the precise qualifications and technical requirements for open job roles.
4. Need for candidates with cutting-edge skills in emerging technologies that are in short supply among US applicants.

Rather than just STEM graduates broadly, employers would more likely highlight shortages and deficiencies in the applicant pool directly relevant to the open positions and specialized needs of their company/industry. By portraying it simply as employers claiming an "inadequate supply of American STEM graduates," the author overlooks the more specific, role-based arguments about lack of qualified applicants that employers would actually emphasize.