Blog Feed

Reflection Questions for Essay 1

Had you written a rhetorical analysis before? What aspects of a rhetorical analysis did you learn about that you hadn’t considered before?

I don’t think I had written a rhetorical analysis before Essay 1. Some aspects of rhetorical analysis that I learned was different strategies writers can use in order to make a more persuasive argument, such as using emotionally loaded language to evoke empathy from the audience.   

What did you learn about your piece or your author’s perspective that you otherwise wouldn’t have discovered?

One thing I learned from the article was that the death penalty costs more than life impriosonment, this is because capital cases are always more expensive. Kristof explained in his article that capital cases also get appealed often, meaning more money and ultimately more time. 

What are the ways you effectively prepared, revised, and bettered your writing for the Essay 1 final draft? What ways do you wish to continue to improve for Essay 2 and 3?

I think the main way I improved my writing was through constructive criticism, from my professor as well as my peers. Through their notes and ideas on improving my writing I was able to revise and fix what I had already done. For Essay 2 and 3 I plan to continue using my peers and my professors notes to improve my writing and focus on not making little mistakes such as grammar or spelling. 

What questions do you still have about rhetorical analysis? What questions do you have about the writing process? About grammar?

One question I have about the writing process is why do journalists write in APA form whereas mostly everything else is written in MLA form?

Essay One

To Kill or Not to Kill

Do some people deserve to die for the crimes they have committed, and do we have the right to take their lives? This is a question that people have asked themselves for centuries, and with the death penalty being legal in some states and not in others, the debate continues. Pulitzer Prize winner, Nicholas Kristof, in a New York Times editorial titled “When We Kill” (June 14, 2019), argues that there is no evidence that the death penalty actual deters crime, it costs more to put someone to death then it does to give them a life sentence, and there is a racial bias to the death penalty which undermines the legitmacy of our judical system. Kristof supports these claims by presenting personal testimonies of people who have been wrongfully sentenced to death, which provides unique evidence to backup his claims. Kristof successfully uses rhetorical strategies including his research and background knowledge, personal anecdotes, emotionally loaded stories, and scientific facts and theories to make a more persuasive argument for  his audience.

First off, Kristof uses his research and personal experience with the death penalty to provide credibilty for his audience. Kristof mentions early on in his article about how his interest in the death penalty first arose, which was when he was approached about doing a story on a man named Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was a man on death row who was believed to be innocent; however, Kirstof writes, “I never wrote about Willingham, and he was executed” (Kristof), which Kristof says drove him to take a deeper look into the death penalty. From there, Kristof writes about how he decided to look at individual cases of men wrongfully convicted, and he’s able to come to the conclusion that the death penalty has a racial bias because he believes that many of the men he talked to were convicted in large part due to their race, adding, “In Washington State, researchers found that juries were four times as likely to recommend a death sentence for a black defendant as for a similar white defendant.” (Kristof). Kristof’s claims are convincing because he has evidence to back up his argument. He is credible because of his experience, and in turn, his argument is stronger.  He also demonstrates goodwill towards the issue, which makes him trustworthy. Another example of Kristof using ethos to make his argument more compelling is when he includes a direct quote from the prosecutor of Willingham about his thoughts on the death penalty, “In hindsight, I don’t think the death penalty serves a meaingful purpose,” (Henry M. Coxe III). This is one of the most compelling factors in Kristof’s piece because the prosecutor who fought for Willingham’s death sentence actually says that he really doesn’t see meaning in the death penalty. It is also compelling because he has someone with credibility and immense experience with the topic agreeing with his claims that the death penalty overall is flawed. Kristof is presenting an opinion by someone who has even more credibility then himself, an opinion which falls in line with what Kristof is arguing; this makes his argument more compelling to the audience because he has other credible opinions, other than his own, supporting his claims. 

Kristof includes many emotionally loaded stories of men wrongfully sentenced to death throughout his article in order to appeal to his readers’ emotions. One specific anecdote Kristof brings up is a case involving two men sentenced to death for a murder they didn’t commit. Kristof writes that Williams and Myers spent 42 years wrongfully in jail, adding, “…as they emerged from prison, two frail and elderly men, Myers knelt and kissed the ground” (Kristof).  Kristof uses emotional and vivid language in order to paint a picture of what it was truly like for these two men. By using this kind of language, Kristof is able to evoke sympathy from the reader for these men, which makes for an overall more compelling argument because the reader is able to put themselves in those mens’ shoes. Kristof was successful in reaching his audience emotionally with these personal stories because they allow his audience to actualize the serverity of the death penalty, especially for men wrongly accused. His use of this and other examples also appeals to logos because his claims have evidence supported by real life anecdotes. Kristof does an excellent job of creating negative feelings for the death penalty using these stories which the audience is convinced are true because of Kristof’s goodwill. 

Throughout Kristof’s article he includes various facts and statistics to support his claims. Kristof actually supports every claim he makes in the article, which makes his argument all the more compelling. Kristoff writes, “Murder rates are actually lower in states without the death penalty than those with it. Some jurisdictions have periodically banned the death penalty and then brought it back, and this back-and-forth seems to have zero impact on homicide rates” (Kristof). By supporting his claims with actual facts, he was more persuasive to the reader because his argument is based in reality. He also disproves a lot of misconceptions about the death penalty; for example, “Capital punishment is far more expensive than life prison terms” (Kristof). Kristof goes on to explain that this is because everything is more expensive in capital cases, adding, “One 2017 study by several criminologists found that on average, each death sentence costs taxpayers $700,000 more than life imprisonment” (Kristof). By doing this Kristof is strengthening his argument as well as providing information that most people wouldn’t know. Kristof uses logos throughout his article to give all his claims some backing as well as making an overall stronger and more convincing argument.

Kristof was able to create a compelling argument through his use of his research and background knowledge, personal anecdotes, emotionally loaded stories, and scientific facts and theories to make a more persuasive argument for  his audience. Kristof used his knowlege and background of the death penalty to give himself more credibilty with the reader as well as including passionate and emotional stories of real people to pull at the readers’ heartstrings. Also Kristof’s use of facts throughout his article provides evidence that ultimately backs up his claims. Beforing reading this article I was in favor of the death penalty, however after reading Kristof’s piece, my opinion has changed. This was due to Kristof being able to present evidence that ultimately changed my own beliefs. Kristof’s article is impactful because it can change voters opinions which will incite actual change within our judicial system, which I believe was Kristof’s main goal with this article. I think Kristof was successful in creating a persuasive argument as well as starting a discussion about the flaws in our judicial system.  

Works Cited

Kristof, Nicholas. “When We Kill.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/sunday/death-penalty.html.

Grammar Guide

• A sentence is a group of words that names something (subject) and makes a statement about what is named (verb + complete thought).
• A sentence fragment is an incomplete sentence because it lacks a subject, lacks a verb, or is a dependent clause. Fragments usually begin with a subordinate conjunction or a relative pronoun. When sentences begin with subordinate conjunctions or relative pronouns, they must be joined to a main clause.
• An independent clause is a sentence. It can stand alone and make sense. A dependent clause is a fragment. It cannot stand alone and make sense.
• Subordinate Conjunctions: after, although, as, as if, as though, because, before, except, if, since, though, unless, until, when, whereas
• Relative Pronouns: that, what, whatever, which, who, whoever, whom, whose
• Fragments
  • Although he wanted to go to the meeting. Whoever goes to the meeting.
  • Complete sentences
  • Although he wanted to go to the meeting, his doctor advised him to stay home. Whoever goes to the meeting should bring back handouts for the rest of the group.

Run-on sentences usually occur as comma splices or fused sentences. A fused sentence occurs when independent clauses are joined with no punctuation. A comma splice occurs when a comma joins two independent clauses.

An independent clause is a sentence. It can stand alone and make sense.

Form the possessive of singular and plural nouns by using an apostrophe. (boy’s book, boys’ books, children’s toys)

Use semicolons to separate independent clauses that are brief and closely related.  This works best with cause and effect information. Ex: (Abby’s dance routine is the best; she won two awards.)

Use commas to separate nouns of direct address (the name of the person or group directly spoken to) from the rest of the sentence. Ex: (Dad, do I have to eat all of this?)

Use commas to set off parenthetical expressions that provide additional information that can be easily removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. Ex: (Front row seating costs extra, according to the brochure.)

Use semicolons instead of commas between items in a series if the items themselves contain commas. (Next week the President will visit Norfolk, Virginia; Cincinnati, Ohio, and San Antonio, Texas.)

Use italics for the titles of books, newspapers, magazines, musical compilations, works of art, ships, television shows, movies, etc. (A famous movie is Gone with the Wind.  I read the Dallas Morning News on Sundays.)

Commonly Confused Words (Grammar Guide)

ACCEPT: to receive

ex: She accepted the gift from the King.

EXCEPT: to take or leave out

ex: Do not take all the cookies off the plate except for the one you are going to eat.

CITE: to quote or document

ex: You must cite at least four quotes from the same source in this paper.

SIGHT: vision

ex: The sight of brownies always makes me hungry.

APART: to be separated

ex: The dog leashes were the only thing keeping those two dogs apart.

A PART:to be joined with

ex: The new house addition was built to be a part of the old house. 

Revised Conclusion Paragraph

Kristof was able to create a compelling argument through his use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Kristof used his knowlege and background of the death penalty to give himself more credibilty with the reader as well as including passionate and emotional stories of real people to pull at the readers’ heartstrings. Also Kristof’s use of facts throughout his article provides evidence that ultimately backs up his claims. Beforing reading this article I was for the death penalty, however after reading my opinion has changed. This was due to Kristof being able to present evidence that ultimately persuaded. His article is powerful because it does hold the power to change opinions which can in turn change the way someone may vote which can evoke actual change. 

2nd Draft

To Kill or Not to Kill

Do some people deserve to die for the crimes they have committed, and do we have the right to take their lives? This is a question that people have asked themselves for centuries, and with the death penalty being legal in some states and not in others, the question continues. Pulitzer Prize winner, Nicholas Kristof, in a New York Times editorial titled “When We Kill” (June 14, 2019), argues that there is no evidence that the death penalty actual deters crime, it costs more to put someone to death then it does to give them a life sentence, and there is a racial bias to the death penalty which undermines the legitmacy of our judical system. Kristof supports these claims by presenting personal testimonies of people who have been wrongfully sentenced to death, which provides unique evidence to backup his claims. Kristof successfully uses rhetorical strategies including his research and background knowledge, emotionally loaded language, personal anecdotes, and scientific facts and theories to make a more persuasive argument to his audience.

Kristof uses his research and experience with the death penalty to make a more persuassive argument to his readers’. Kristof mentions early on in his article about how his interest in the death penalty first arose, which was when he was approached about doing a story on a man named Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was a man on death row who was believed to be innocent, however Kirstof writes, “I never wrote about Willingham, and he was executed.” (Kristof), which Kristof says drove him to take a deeper look into the death penalty. From there Kristof writes about how he decided to look at individual cases of men wrongfully conivted, and from there he’s able to come to the conclusion that the death penalty has a racial bias. Based on the fact that many of the men he talked to were convicted in large part due to their race. Kristof’s claims are convincing because he has background information and knowledge to back up his argument. He is credible because of his experience and in turn his argument is stronger. This would be an example of Kristof using the rhetorical strategy ethos to strengthen his overall argument because of his background and goodwill towards the issue. Another example of Kristof using ethos to make his argument more compelling is when he includes a direct quote from the prosecutor of Willingham about his thoughts on the death penalty, “In hindsight, I don’t think the death penalty serves a meaingful purpose,” (Henry M. Coxe III). This is one of the most compelling factors in Kristof’s piece because the prosecutor who fought for Willingham’s death sentence, actually says that he really doesn’t see meaning in the death penalty. This is compelling because he has someone with credibility and immense experience with the topic agreeing with his claims that the death penalty overall is flawed. Kristof’s use of the quote would be an example of him using ethos to create a stronger argument because he is presenting an opinion by someone who has even more credibility then himself, which falls in line with what Kristof is arguing. This makes his argument more compelling to the audience because he has other credible opinions, other than his own, supporting his claims. 

Kristof includes many stories of men wrongfully sentenced to death throughout his article which evokes sympathy from his audience. One specific anecdote Kristof brings up is a case involving two men sentenced to death for a murder they didn’t commit. Kristof writes that Williams and Myers spent 42 years in jail for a crime they did not commit, he adds “…as they emerged from prison, two frail and elderly men, Myers knelt and kissed the ground.” (Kristof), this would be an example of Kristof successfully using the rhetorical strategy of pathos. Kristof uses emotional and vivid language in order to paint a picture of what it was truly like for these two men. By using this kind of language, Kristof is able to evoke empathy from the reader for these men. Which then makes for an overall more compelling argument because the reader is able to put themselves in those mens shoes. Kristof was successful in reaching his audience emotionally with these personal stories because they allow his audience to actualize the serverity of the death penalty. Kristof is successful in creating a sense of pity for these men, which in turn allows his claims to be more persuasive. This is also appealing to logos because his claims have evidence given to the reader by the real life anecdotes Kristof includes. Kristof does an excellent job of creating negative feelings for the death penalty by these stories which the audience is convinced are true because of Kristof’s good will. Which makes his argument all the more appealing to the reader. Another example of Kristof using pathos successfully is when he writes, “Imagine what it would be like to lose the people you love most, then be convicted of murdering them and finally be strapped to a gurney and executed by lethal injection.” (Kristof), this quote is very powerful and really makes the reader think about the flaws in our justice system. Kristof was successful in making the reader ask themselves questions, and in turn question their own beliefs. By doing this, Kristof makes his claims more compelling because he brings up good questions that people wouldn’t normally ask themselves. 

Throughout Kristof’s article he includes various facts and statistics to support his claims. Kristof actually supports every claim he makes in the article, which makes his argument all the more compelling. Kristoff writes, “Murder rates are actually lower in states without the death penalty than those with it.” (Kristof), this would be an example of Kristof using the rhetorical strategy logos to create a more compelling argument. By supporting his claims with actual facts, he was more persuasive to the reader because his argument is based in reality. He also disproves a lot of misconceptions about the death penalt; for example, “Capital punishment is far more expensive than life prison terms” (Kristof). By doing this Kristof is strengthening his argument as well as providing information that most people wouldn’t know. Kristof uses logos throughout his article to give all his claims some backing as well as making an overall stronger and more convincing argument.

Kristof was able to create a compelling argument through his use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Kristof used his knowlege and background of the death penalty to give himself more credibilty with the reader as well as including passionate and emtional stories of real people to pull at the readers’ heartstrings. By doing this, Kristof was able to appeal to the emotions of the reader and in turn make a stronger argument. Also Kristof’s use of facts throughout his article provides evidence that ultimately backs up his claims. This allows for a more compelling argument because the reader was able to see that his claims were credible. Overall, Kristof was successful in using the rhetorical devices ethos, pathos, and logos in making a very compelling argument. 

Thesis statement: Kristof successfully uses strategies including his research and background knowledge, emotionally loaded language, personal anecdotes, and scientific facts and theories to make a more persuasive argument to his audience.

Topic sentence 1: Kristof uses his research and experience with the death penalty to make a more persuassive argument to his readers’.

Topic sentence 2: Kristof includes many stories of men wrongfully sentenced to death throughout his article which evokes sympathy from his audience.

Topic sentence 3: Throughout Kristof’s article he includes various facts and statistics to support his claims.

Audience Analysis of https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/sunday/death-penalty.html

Who is the intended audience?

After reading this article written by Nicholas Kristof, I believe his intended audience is older people who are interested in the criminal justice system. I believe this because a lot of the terminology used throughout Kristof’s piece are common criminal justice terms that only people with basic knowledge of the field would understand. Also his language throughout the article suggest his intended audience is older and has some schooling based on the vocabulary used. I can not tell from Kristof’s article if his intended audience has a specific gender however I can tell that he is targeting people with occupations in criminal justice. I would say this because a lot of the comments made under the article are from people in that field. Also he references credible people from that field, which suggests his audience has prior knowledge of who they are. Therefor his intended audience would be people working in the criminal justice field or people who are very interested in it.

Discuss how the intended audience is affected by or involved in the topic being discussed. Discuss the main characteristics of this audience, including values, assumptions, experiences, and stances that work for and against the piece’s interest. 

I believe Kristof’s intended audience is involved with the topic either through work or interest. I would say the main characteristic of his audience would be people who like to examine our criminal justice system and discuss what works and what doesn’t with that system. I would also say his intended audience are people who are looking for justice and may have some occupation within the criminal justice system. I also believe has intended audience are people with contrasting opinions about the topic of lethal injection. I think he does this in order to start a healthy conversation about the death penalty.

How will the audience benefit from this topic? What can be done with the information provided? Why is it necessary to know this? What difference might it make?

I believe Kristof’s audience can benefit from this topic by going out and voting for what they think is right. I also think that the information he provided can be used to better understand the death penalty and the various arguments for and against it. I think this article could be eye-opening to many people and maybe change their views on the death penalty.

In what context is the reader looking at this material? Are the readers already somewhat interested? Are they completely unaware? Are they antagonistic/hostile toward the topic, or doubtful about any point which might be made? Are they supportive/sympathetic? Are they neutral? How do you know? Why do you suspect this to be the case? Give your reasoning and evidence.

I would say from reading Kristof’s article that his readers are somewhat already interested in this topic. This is because he really jumps right into his argument and doesn’t explain a whole lot. I would say Kristof is passionate about this topic and genuinely believe his own claims. However he doesn’t come off hostile with his argument which allows for a healthy debate. I believe this to be the case based off of Kristof’s tone throughout his article.

What questions might the audience need to have answered? What questions might the audience be left with after reading/seeing/listening to the argument? What kind of background information might they need before they accept the claim? 

I think Kristof does a good job about answering a lot of questions his readers might have. However I think his readers are left with asking themselves what they truly think is right. Kristof’s argument is so strong because he makes his readers think and ask themselves what they truly believe. Paragraph

What is the audience’s background (for example, technical or educational)? In general, are they prepared and able to understand, interpret, and apply the information in the piece? 

I would say Kristof’s intended audience is meant to have some background knowledge on the topic. I would also say that his intended audience is supposed to be able to understand and process this information. Kristof doesn’t do a lot of explaining of the topic, instead he Staes the facts and his argument.

To Kill or Not to Kill

Do some people deserve to die for the crimes they have committed, and do we have the right to take their lives? This is a question that people have asked themselves for centuries, and with the death penalty being passed into legislation in some states and not in others, the question continues. Pulitzer Prize winner, Nicholas Kristof, in the New York Times editorial titled “When We Kill” (June 14, 2019), argues that there is no evidence that the death penalty actual deters crime, it costs more to put someone to death then it does to give them a life sentence, and there is a racial bias to the death penalty which undermines the legitmacy of our judical system. Kristof supports these claims by presenting personal testimonies of people who have been wrongfully sentenced to death, which provides unique evidence to backup his claims. Kristof successfully uses rhetorical strategies including ethos, pathos, and logos to make a more persuading argument to his audience.

Kristof mentions early on in his article about how his interest in the death penalty first arose, which was when he was approached about doing a story on a man named Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was a man on death row who was believed to be innocent, however Kirstof writes, “I never wrote about Willingham, and he was executed.” (Kristof), which Kristof says drove him to take a deeper look into the death penalty. From there Kristof writes about how he decided to look at individual cases of men wrongfully conivted, and from there he’s able to come to the conclusion that the death penalty has a racial bias. Based on the fact that many of the men he talked to where convicted in large part due to their race. Kristof’s claims are convincing because he has background information and knowledge to back up his argument. He is credible because of his experience and in turn his argument is stronger. This would be an example of Kristof using the rhetorical strategy ethos to strengthen his overall argument. Another example of Kristof using ethos to make his argument more compelling is when he includes a direct quote from the prosecutor of Willingham about his thoughts on the death penalty, “In hindsight, I don’t think the death penalty serves a maeingful purpose,” (Henry M. Coxe III). This is one of the most compelling factors in Kristof’s piece because the prosecutor who fought for Willinghams death sentence, actually say that he really doesn’t see meaning in the death penalty. This is compelling because he has someone with credibility and immense experience with the topic agreeing with his claims that the death penalty overall is flawed. Kristof’s use of the quote would be an example of him using ethos to create a stronger argument because he is presenting an opinion by someone who has even more credibility then himself, which falls in line with what Kristof is arguing. This makes his argument more compelling to the audience because he has other credible opinions, other then himself, stating his claims. 

Kristof includes many stories of men wrongfully sentenced to death throughout his article. One specific anecdote Kristof brings up is a case involving two men sentenced to death for a muder they didn’t commit. Kristof writes that Williams and Myers spent 42 years in jail for a crime they did not commit, he adds “…as they emerged from prison, two frail and elderly men, Myers knelt and kissed the ground.” (Kristof), this would be an example of Kristof successfully using the rhetorical strategy pathos. Kristof uses emotional and vivid language in order to paint a picture of what it was truly like for these two men. By using this kind of language Kristof is able to evoke empathy from the reader for these men. Which then makes for an overall more compelling argument because the reader is able to put themselves in those men shoes. Kristof was successful in reaching his audience emotionally with these personal stories because they allow his audience to actualize the serverity of the death penalty. Kristof is successful in creating a sense of pity for these men, which in turn allows his claims to be more persuasive. This is because his claims now have evidence given to the reader by the real life anecdotes Kristof includes. Kristof does an excellent job of creating negative feelings for the death penalty by these unfortunatly true stories, which makes his argument all the more appealing to the reader. Another example of Kristof using pathos successfully is when he writes, “Imagine what it would be like to lose the people you love most, then be convicted of murdering them and finally be strapped to a gurney and executed by lethal injection.” (Kristof), this quote is very powerful and really makes the reader think. Kristof was successful in making the reader ask themselves questions, and in turn question their own beliefs. By doing this Kristof makes his claims more compelling because he brings up good points that people wouldn’t normally ask themselves. 

Throughout Kristof’s article he includes various facts and statistics to support his claims. Kristof actually proves every claim he makes in the article, which makes his argument all the more compelling. Kristoff writes, “Murder rates are actually lower in states without the death penalty than those with it.” (Kristof), this would be an example of Kristof using the rhetorical strategy logos to create a more compelling argument. By Kristof supporting his claims with actual facts he provided more evidence to the reader that his argument is sound. He also disproves a lot of misconceptions about the death penalty, “Capital punishment is far more expensive than life prison terms.” (Kristof), by doing this Kristof is strengthening his argument as well as providing information that most people wouldn’t know. Kristof uses logos throughout his article to give all his claims some backing as well as making an overall better and more convincing argument.

Kristof was able to create a compelling argument through his use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Kristof used his knowlege and backgrounf of the death penalty to give himself some more credibilty with the reader as well as including passionate and emtional stories of real people to pull at the readers heartstrings. By doing this, Kristof was able to appeal to the emotions of the reader and inturn make a stronger argument. Also Kristof’s use of facts throughout his article provides evidence that ultimately backs up his claims. This allows for a more compelling argument because the reader was able to see that his claims were credible. Overall Kristof was successful in using the rhetorical devices ethos, pathos, and logos in making a very compelling argument. 

Works Cited

Kristof, Nicholas. “When We Kill.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/sunday/death-penalty.html.

Introduction paragraph for Essay 1:

Do some people deserve to die for the crimes they have committed, and do we have the right to take their lives? This is a question that people have asked themselves for centuries, and with the death penalty being passed into legislation in some states and not in others, the question continues. Pulitzer Prize winner, Nicholas Kristof, in the New York Times editorial titled “When We Kill” (June 14, 2019), argues that there is no actual evidence that the death penalty deters crime and it costs more to put someone to death then it is to house them for life. Kristof also argues that there is a racial bias to the death penalty which undermines the legitmacy of our judical system. Kristof supports his claims by including real life anecdotes of people who have been sentenced to death, which provides unique evidence to backup his claims. Kristof also provides specific data that shows that the death penalty does not deter crime. His purpose is to persuade his audience that the death penalty does more harm then good and that we as readers are misinformed about the death penalty. Kristof writes in a passionate tone that shows his dedication to this topic. He also uses many real life anecdotes that evoke emotion in the reader. In this essay I will analyze the author’s use of rhetorical strategies to persuade his audience that the death penalty does not deter crime, costs more money then life sentences, and has a racial bias.