This is a repost of an older post, but I thought that John James does a fantastic job tearing apart pointless rhetoric in his response to an anti-market article:
Just thought that this should serve as a model for approaching any paper. Question each assumption, hunt out those non sequiturs, reduce to basic principles, and throw out language that doesn’t add information.
JJ, I’ve seen you do this a number of times. You should teach a class in rhetorical analysis 