ADHD is an extremely real diagnosis for many children in the United States. Are we overdiagnosing our little ones just to avoid dealing with unpleasant behaviors? “On average, 1 in 10 to 15 children in the United States has been diagnosed with the disorder, and 1 in 20 to 25 uses a stimulant medication” (Mayes, Bagwell, & Erkulwater, 2008). Many believe that virtually all ADHD diagnoses are retractable with proper discipline of children instead of being so hasty in treating them. Material found on the CDC website describes the facts about ADHD, clarifies the signs, symptoms, types, causes, diagnostic tools and forms of treatment of ADHD. What the article neglects to delve into is the fact that there is a significant amount of controversy surrounding ADHD. The CDC's use of ethos, pathos, and logos and the method by which the website manipulates them to influence the reader will be the basis of this article. Ethics, which is the reputation of the CDC, is one of the main reasons behind someone being confident that the information found on the website is accurate. The CDC is a government organization that is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and has been in operation for over sixty years. With government support and years of service to the nation, the CDC is a trusted source. With their credibility, the public would expect the CDC website to be impartial in presenting facts regarding ADHD. Reading the "Facts about ADHD" web page does not include all the truths. ADHD has remained a controversial topic among parents, teachers, doctors, the media, and politicians for decades. In the “International Journal of Early Childhood” we read: “Controversy over A... middle of paper... who don't want their loved ones to use stimulants; this could cause feelings of hopelessness. Their use of logos is insensitive to the public because false hope of a cure is created, medications and behavioral therapy are seen as the way to control ADHD, and their speculation about what causes ADHD is unfounded . In conclusion, the site appears to be credible, with factual information. Having a child with ADHD, I know firsthand that there are many truths in the article. However, the article is broad and could be very confusing, the facts are not comprehensive and gives the impression that they are biased and do not explain the information carefully, which is insensitive. Their use of ethos, pathos, and logos on the website creates confusion for the reader. Just because the CDC says their findings are facts doesn't mean we don't have the right to expect more from them.