✕ Appeal to Emotion [8/10]: ¶9 · The rhetorical question introduces moral concern and emotional weight around commercialization, inviting reader judgment.

"Canadians’ plasma is now a liquid asset. Is that ethical?"

✕ Euphemism [7/10]: ¶21 · Withholding the name of a key medical decision-maker obscures accountability, especially in a high-stakes incident.

"the centre’s physician – who like other staff mentioned in the reports is not named"

✕ Appeal to Emotion [8/10]: ¶43 · Uses emotionally charged language (“trail of deception,” “beloved family member”) to amplify family’s perspective.

"The family wants answers as to why there has been such a trail of deception regarding the loss of their beloved family member"

✕ Uncritical Authority Quotation [6/10]: ¶26 · Presents a self-exonerating corporate claim without immediate balancing critique, though later contradicted by inspector findings.

"Grifols’ internal investigation of the death concludes that “all procedures were followed appropriately, that equipment was functioning properly and that supplies used were suitable for use.”"

✕ Vague Attribution [5/10]: ¶32 · Highlights lack of direct corporate engagement, weakening accountability, but is transparently reported.

"Grifols did not respond to specific questions about the documents."

✕ Vague Attribution [7/10]: ¶33 · An unsigned corporate statement lacks individual accountability and reduces transparency.

"The company said in an unsigned statement"

✕ Uncritical Authority Quotation [6/10]: ¶44 · Presents Grifols’ interpretation of official reports without critical examination, despite internal contradictions.

"Grifols told The Globe the assessments from Health Canada and the Manitoba medical examiner demonstrate there is no link between the death and the donation process."

✕ Vague Attribution [5/10]: ¶45 · Highlights lack of official response, which limits accountability but is transparently disclosed.

"Health Canada has not responded to questions The Globe has asked about the medical summary, some first sent on May 15."

✕ Narrative Framing [6/10]: ¶6 · Frames the discrepancy between internal findings and public conclusion as a question, inviting scrutiny without resolving it — a fair journalistic approach.

"raise fresh questions about why, months later, Health Canada found that there was “no linkage” between the young woman’s death and the plasma donation process"

✕ Conflict Framing [10/10]: ¶39 · Highlights a direct contradiction between internal inspection findings and official summary, crucial for public understanding.

"The medical summary says equipment function, staff training and emergency response “were all found to be compliant” with standard operating procedures – language that is similar to the conclusion of Grifols’ reports, but contrary to the letters prepared by Health Canada inspectors."