The overall tone of this essay is entertainingly persuasive because of his use of sarcasm and irony to illustrate his claim. For example, Limbaugh says that to distribute condoms or make them available to students in a school setting would condone and even promote sexual activity. He continues to say that if Johnny were trying to persuade Susie into having sex he could just say, "Hey, everything is okay. Nothing will go wrong. Heck, the school gave me this condom, they know what they"re doing. You"ll be fine". The essay consists of about thirty percent data and about seventy percent sarcastic generalizations. However, he doesn't use statistics very well, nor does he appeal to expert authority or popular opinion. For instance, he says, "The condom failure rate can be as high as twenty percent," but where did this information come from. Furthermore, he uses language manipulation coupled with exaggerations that seem persuasive, but many flaws can be found in his argument. First, the only solution presented in his approach to sex education is that of abstinence, neglecting to consider a combination of the two. What if condoms were made available to students through the school nurse, while abstinence was taught in the classroom? His presentation consists of either handing out condoms to teens while saying, "Enjoy!" or teaching abstinence. There is no middle ground; therefore he uses the false dichotomy fallacy in his argument. Another fallacy is that Limbaugh twists a way of thinking into a false analogy. He says that the logic to giving students condoms is because "kids are going to do it anyway, you can't stop them". Then he continues with, "Why limit the application of that brilliant logic to sexual activity? Kids are going to get guns and shoot them, you can't stop them, so let's make sure that teachers have bullet proof vests." He compares giving out condoms to giving out bulletproof vests, because obviously kids are going to shoot teachers and each other anyway.
