Michael Embrich presents an emotionally appealing case for the negative consequences of mass layoffs on veterans and their families. However, his presentation of the firing of probationary employees at the Depart of Veteran Affairs contains multiple points of cherry-picking, amounting to a significant distortion of the situation.

1. cherry picking • There are several instances of cherry-picking in the text, which significantly distort Embrich's portrayal of the situation surrounding the cuts at the VA. Here's a breakdown of the cherry-picking: ​

• Focusing on the number of probationary employees laid off without context. The author highlights the 1,000 probationary employees laid off without mentioning the total number of probationary employees (43,000) or the overall VA workforce (450,000). This creates a misleading impression of a massive layoff affecting a more significant portion of the VA workforce than is the case. ​
• Ignoring the exemption for mission-critical positions. The author fails to mention that the layoffs did not apply to employees in "mission-critical positions," primarily those supporting benefits and services for veterans. This omission suggests that all veterans' services are being negatively impacted, when in reality, the cuts were targeted towards non-essential roles. ​
• Omitting the redirection of funds. The author doesn't mention that the $98 million saved through the layoffs will be redirected back to healthcare, benefits, and services for veterans. This omission creates the impression that the cuts are solely about reducing costs, without acknowledging the potential for reinvestment in veterans' services. ​
• Focusing solely on Elon Musk and his lack of military experience ("Then Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire with no ties to the military, fires you.") The failure to mention that Doug Collins, the Secretary of Veteran Affairs, was ultimately responsible for the layoffs, is a deliberate omission of a crucial piece of information that significantly alters the narrative. ​ ​Since the author implies that military experience would be important to such cuts being reasonably made, it is misleading for him not to mention that Doug Collins brings the experience of an Air Force chaplain and an Iraq war veteran to the role, not to mention the he was confirmed by the Senate in a 77-23 vote with significant bipartisan support.

By selectively presenting information and omitting crucial details, the author creates a biased and misleading narrative that supports his argument against the administration's actions. This cherry-picking undermines the credibility of the text and highlights the author's agenda to portray the situation in a negative light.

2. appeal to pity • The author uses emotionally charged language and imagery to evoke sympathy and outrage in the reader. ​

Picture this. You risk everything for your country. Leave friends and family behind. Go overseas. Watch your friends die or have their lives changed forever. You come home.

This is done to manipulate the reader's emotions and make them more receptive to the author's argument. When readers are emotional, they are less likely to scrutinize the facts, such as questioning the cherry-picked narrative the author presents.

3. slippery slope with appeal to motive • The author suggests that the hiring process changes will lead to a series of negative consequences, culminating in veterans being forced into the private sector where they will receive inferior care.

This new bureaucratic bottleneck ensures hiring will stall completely, leaving veterans without the services they need. But that may be the point -- by making the VA so dysfunctional, veterans will either suffer in silence or be forced into the private sector, where profits come before care.

This argument assumes a chain reaction of events without providing evidence to support the claim, which is dubious in view of the information that was suppressed by the cherry-picking, above.

It is also an appeal to motive, presuming that the intention of the cuts ("that may be the point") is to render the VA inoperable. Motives are nearly impossible to assess or prove, but easy to allege. And the motivation for a policy does not in and of itself mean the policy is good or bad. In critical thinking, policies must be assessed on their on merits (or lack thereof) irrespective of presumed motivations.