Although the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights consented equal rights for men and women, it was only after the feminist movement in the 1960s that women really started enjoying equality in law, family life and work environment. Nonetheless, gender discrimination still exists in different forms and it is arguably a very sensitive issue in our society. One piece of writing that tackles this subject is an editorial called “Silicon Valley's Gender Pay Gap Is Actually A Gender Segregation Gap” published on Forbes Magazine website on April 2nd 2015. Tim Worstall, the author, is making a rhetorical argument on why the employment of men and women in Silicon Valley is divided into different sets of occupations, in order to find alternatives that might help solving the issue. At first sight the editorial seems persuasive and well written; nonetheless, at a closer look it evinces several flaws (such as unfounded arguments and instances of hasty generalization) that affect the overall credibility and cogency. The first factual argument of the writing, namely a report showing a significant gender pay gap both in general and specifically within the tech companies (para 1) aims at consolidating Worstall’s thesis; however, since he fails to cite the source, the reliability of his claim cannot be proven and the argument loses its strength. This specific, epideictic piece of evidence is then extrapolated into a deliberative argument when Worstall states that the report might actually depict a segregation of employment fields between men and women: while men are usually found in the engineering domain, women seem to graduate in different fields that prevent them from getting the same high paid jobs as men. He further explains this assumption by citing Simon Baron Cohen’s work which divides the human brain into empathic versus systematic, women belonging more to the former type while men typically more to the latter. Although Worstall obviously believes in this theory (“it hangs together for me” – para 4), he apparently refrains from trying to persuade the reader to think likewise, encouraging everyone to make up their own mind. This is a subtle yet very effective strategy of persuasion, where the author makes a very strong claim (furthermore, supported by a scientific research), yet he leaves room for a different opinion from the reader. As a result, the reader will be allured into thinking the same way, more so than if the author had directly imposed his/her opinions or beliefs. Another effective persuasive strategy is the use of highly emotional claims, aimed at stirring the audience and appealing to its emotions (pathos). There is a change of the tone to a more tangible and credible one, since it all comes down to a matter of “taste” discrimination. “Bosses just won’t hire female engineers simply because they are female” (para 1, page 2). The use of pathos is a very powerful technique, which allows Worstall to take a step further towards proving his whole thesis proposition.
In order to strengthen his case, Worstall introduces a forensic argument dating back to 1962 in which a British female entrepreneur used the same kind of “taste” discrimination in her favor by creating a programming company made up entirely of women with children; this idea is an enormous success. Therefore, assuming that the present issue does not lie in the shortage of women graduating in the engineering field but rather in the employers’ discriminatory behavior, exploiting the female engineers niche would have the same extraordinary outcome in the nowadays Silicon Valley job market. The forensic argument adds credibility and weight to his premise since it depicts a similar circumstance that was favorably solved in the past.
After having successfully appealed to pathos Worstall touches on ethos as well, since he already enjoys a certain level of credibility from the reader. The case of the male-dominated Silicon Valley startups is presented as an unethical and discriminatory maneuver, which contributes negatively to the gender segregation. However, this assumption is not warranted as it can be a mere case of hasty generalization: Worstall might only be familiar with a few cases and these might not be relevant enough in order to draw such a definitive conclusion.
The efficiency of the editorial relies in the variety of techniques used: a skillful appeal to pathos and ethos, the introduction of a forensic argument and an artful use of inductive reasoning. However, citing the sources of the factual arguments and avoiding the instances of hasty generalization would have further enhanced the strength and cogency of Worstall thesis.

Works cited
Worstall, Tim. "Silicon Valley's Gender Pay Gap Is Actually A Gender Segregation
Gap." Forbes 4 Feb. 2015. Web. Retrieved from www.forbes.com