This study turns a rhetorical lens on the debate about how best to use value-added modeling (VAM) in teacher evaluation by addressing the question, Which arguments legitimize the dismissal of expert caution about proposed education reforms? My rhetorical analysis of a corpus of nonacademic texts (e.g., newspapers, magazines, political speeches) reveals three persuasive strategies that function to get around technical concerns about VAM. By pointing out these strategies and explaining how they work, the study disrupts their persuasive potential and suggests a potentially overlooked role of expertise in public decision making.