Statistics does fit into that, as one particular species of correctly using empirical evidence. But most freshmen students aren't even constructing coherent arguments in the broad sense; having a technical knowledge of statistical theorems isn't the main bottleneck. This is actually a common problem in my classes: technically-solid students who can't write a coherent essay-length or blog-post-length argument in favor of or against a point. The better students tended to have taken at least a Philosophy 101 course, which taught them how to write a basic "argument for or against a position" paper. Once you have that, there's a pretty good basis on which to expand the argumentation toolbox with statistical arguments.
This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."
On the other side you have the ability to phrase it as a question in the same language as Aristotle.
This is an incredibly gross simplification of applying statistical theory. I suggest you pick up some texts on inference, Bayesian stats, and probability theory to learn how stats != "running t-tests".
I'm not making any statement about whether I agree with him, but if you disagree you will have to claim that he is cherry picking one useful and one useless skill, not just say that there is more to stats than t-tests.
So, 112% of the time 60% of STEMS <X>? What a strange way of phrasing it.
In fact recently some job reqs were going around the company through several of the "communication" oriented people, and it was the engineers correcting the grammar and improving the flow of the text.
An unkind impulse suggests that when logic and traditional rhetoric become the domain of "dead prejudiced white guys" you're not looking at the ideal environment for teaching communication skills. The writing of some of my high school acquaintances with English or Journalism degrees blows my mind, and not in a good way.
Are you really claiming that Liberal Arts grads don't discard their problem solving and critical thinking?
I ask because I don't see them demonstrating either, at least compared to STEM folk. So, either they didn't learn them or they discard them quickly.
EDIT: In response to some of the questions below, please let me clarify. When I said "other side" I was meaning a lack of well-roundedness. I was NOT trying to pit STEM grads against liberal arts grads.
I do not intend to state that STEM graduates don't know problem solving or critical thinking. Far from it. However in my experience, those skills are discarded too quickly - similar to how Liberal Arts grads tend to discard even the limited quantitative toolsets they've acquired. (I'll concede its probably not as prevalent among the HN crowd.)
Ultimately, its a lack of well-roundedness that limits all camps (I'm sure it would be more accurate to consider more tightly-defined groups than just liberal arts vs engineers.) Ideas are cheap, that's why we laugh at the Wharton posts looking for "code monkeys" every few months. Just as problematic though, is the greatest product but no ability to bring it to market and sustain a viable business.