Here’s the thing: I specifically selected a passage which had three different types of evidence (the whole article has more) because you wanted specifics but not statistics. So given that, was the senate report convincing?
If not, please think about what sort of information you might want to support the concept that the CEO was culpable. Personally I would look for statistics in this type of situation and simply evaluate them myself to see if they are misleading, because statistics seem like the only way to separate one CEO from another.
If there’s not a type of evidence that would work, you’re not holding a neutral position.
Here’s the thing: I specifically selected a passage which had three different types of evidence (the whole article has more) because you wanted specifics but not statistics. So given that, was the senate report convincing?
If not, please think about what sort of information you might want to support the concept that the CEO was culpable. Personally I would look for statistics in this type of situation and simply evaluate them myself to see if they are misleading, because statistics seem like the only way to separate one CEO from another.
If there’s not a type of evidence that would work, you’re not holding a neutral position.