I'm a stats-heavy computer scientist, but I'd argue the opposite: the ability to construct and evaluate a rigorous argument is the first thing lacking: one that plausibly analyzes the domain, recounts opposing arguments reasonably fairly, constructs counterarguments that are actually responsive to the opponents' arguments, and uses logical argumentation along with empirical evidence in a way that correctly supports its points.
This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."
This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."