Summary Of Experts Are Never Right By Harry N. Rosenfield

Every persuasive article has at least one issue and conclusion. “Experts Are Never Right” by Harry N. Rosenfield is no exception. This article discusses whether “experts” are trustworthy sources. The issue in the article is the question the article is trying to answer. The conclusion is an answer to the question that the author wants the reader to accept. The issue and conclusion can be found using examples given in the article. By reading Rosenfield’s essay, one can infer the issue and conclusion based upon the examples he writes about. I will prove I have found the correct issue and conclusion with evidence found in the article.

I believe the issue in the article is, should we be listening to solely to “experts” in regards to social reform
Rosenfield says that the medical field progressed because of social movements, not because of medical professionals. He also gives examples of architects fighting against the idea of “zoning” when it was first proposed in New York City. They were against having housing regulations and against city planning, two necessary elements for safety. Rosenfield later explains that great professional educators weren’t in charge of starting public schools. Some organizations of teachers even opposed the strides made towards free public education. He also says lawyers protested administrative law, a common practice now. He quoted A former dean of law at the University of Minnesota, William R. Vance, as saying, “There is scarcely one important reform measure in the long line of changes that have attended the law in its path. . . but has been bitterly opposed by members of the bar – some of them among the greatest of its ornament.” While “experts” are highly regarded in their fields, Rosenfield makes it clear that they are not always correct. This fact brings up the issue previously stated, should we listen to “experts’”