A national debate has thrown fuel on the fires of politics and race in America. This debate revolves around the removal of statues honoring Confederate soldiers, and its forum ranges from the halls of Congress to our city streets. This chain of events culminated in a violent protest on the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia. Its cost on that day was the life of Charlottesville resident Heather Hayer and two police officers responding to the violence. In the days following the events in Charlottesville, a number of politicians and other public figures spoke out about the issues of removing these statues. One politician is Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin of Utah who published an article titled “Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs amok – erasing our history doesn’t change it” on the Fox News website on August 21, 2017. It is widely accept that the majority of Fox News viewers and readers are conservatives, so Mullin’s target audience for this article is his conservative constituents. His ultimate purpose is to stoke the fire of his readers’ patriotism and outrage at “political correctness” and its negative progressive effects on America’s culture and future. The editorial board of the New York Times Op-Ed department makes a well-rounded appeal to pathos when they argue against the death penalty. They begin with a story about a death row inmate, describing an old man with health problems who spends 80 minutes thinking he is about to die before being sent back to his cell to wait two more years for prison officials to try again. The board uses powerful negative adjectives to emphasize disapproval, describing the “pathetic scene” of the elderly inmate as a fair representation of “a vile practice that descends further into macabre farce.” This example humanizes the inmates on death row, encouraging the reader to see them as people instead of simple criminals. They conclude this example by mentioning a case in which the death penalty is challenged as being a cruel and unusual punishment, which certainly could be applied to the sick old man sentenced to two more years of imprisonment only to once again face death. The second point the board makes introduces the issue of prejudice. They describe the death penalty as an exercise in discrimination, listing “mental illness, intellectual disability, brain damage, childhood abuse or neglect, Commented [CA1]: Here is an effective intro for Essay 1: it gives the readers answers to who, what, where, when, and why. And it even identifies the source author’s audience and purpose. Note that this intro is for the Mullin article. Commented [CA2]: This student paragraph follows the MEAL plan for paragraphing, the old/new contract, and guidelines for quoting sources. Note that this paragraph analyzes the NYT op-ed. abysmal lawyers, minimal judicial review, [and] a white victim” as being more relevant to the ou ...

1. A national debate has thrown fuel on the fires of politics and
race in America. This debate
revolves around the removal of statues honoring Confederate
soldiers, and its forum ranges from the
halls of Congress to our city streets. This chain of events
culminated in a violent protest on the streets
of Charlottesville, Virginia. Its cost on that day was the life of
Charlottesville resident Heather Hayer and
two police officers responding to the violence. In the days
following the events in Charlottesville, a
number of politicians and other public figures spoke out about
the issues of removing these statues.
One politician is Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin
of Utah who published an article titled
“Congressman, Native American: When political correctness
runs amok – erasing our history doesn’t
change it” on the Fox News website on August 21, 2017. It is
widely accept that the majority of Fox
News viewers and readers are conservatives, so Mullin’s target
audience for this article is his
conservative constituents. His ultimate purpose is to stoke the
fire of his readers’ patriotism and outrage

2. at “political correctness” and its negative progressive effects on
America’s culture and future.
The editorial board of the New York Times Op-Ed department
makes a well-rounded appeal to
pathos when they argue against the death penalty. They begin
with a story about a death row inmate,
describing an old man with health problems who spends 80
minutes thinking he is about to die before
being sent back to his cell to wait two more years for prison
officials to try again. The board uses
powerful negative adjectives to emphasize disapproval,
describing the “pathetic scene” of the elderly
inmate as a fair representation of “a vile practice that descends
further into macabre farce.” This
example humanizes the inmates on death row, encouraging the
reader to see them as people instead of
simple criminals. They conclude this example by mentioning a
case in which the death penalty is
challenged as being a cruel and unusual punishment, which
certainly could be applied to the sick old
man sentenced to two more years of imprisonment only to once
again face death. The second point the
board makes introduces the issue of prejudice. They describe
the death penalty as an exercise in

3. discrimination, listing “mental illness, intellectual disability,
brain damage, childhood abuse or neglect,
Commented [CA1]: Here is an effective intro for Essay 1:
it gives the readers answers to who, what, where, when,
and why. And it even identifies the source author’s audience
and purpose.
Note that this intro is for the Mullin article.
Commented [CA2]: This student paragraph follows the
MEAL plan for paragraphing, the old/new contract, and
guidelines for quoting sources.
Note that this paragraph analyzes the NYT op-ed.
abysmal lawyers, minimal judicial review, [and] a white victim”
as being more relevant to the outcome
of a conviction than the severity of the crime. As evidence,
they refer to a report on executions last
year, saying that “of the 23 people put to death in 2017, all but
three had at least one of these factors”
and “eight were younger than 21 at the time of their crime.”
This is a particularly hot topic in today’s
political climate. Millennials make up the largest demographic
segment of the New York Times’ audience
and are likely to have strong opinions against racism and
discrimination. Highlighting these patterns in

4. capital punishment sentences is likely to spark righteous
outrage in liberal-leaning readers. In their next
example, the editorial board goes on to describe the large
numbers of wrongful convictions made,
reminding the reader that innocent people have died under the
practice of capital punishment. Loss of
innocent life is often a powerful argument, as most will agree
that it should be avoided whenever
possible. Social pressure is also skillfully applied when the
board describes the steep decline in support
for capital punishment over the last 15 years. They mention that
“the rest of the developed world” has
rejected the practice of capital punishment, again using negative
adjectives such as “cruel” and
“pointless” to invoke disapproval. In the last paragraphs of the
article, the board addresses a
counterpoint that the death penalty will die out on its own. They
acknowledge that many states have
banned or otherwise eliminated capital punishment but point out
that other states have taken measures
to further support the process and exacerbate previously cited
issues. These states the board describes
as “fiercely committed” and says that “they won’t stop killing
people unless they’re forced to.” In their

5. conclusion, the board again refers to America being a minority
in the continued practice of capital
punishment. As a whole, the article makes a well-balanced
appeal using tactics that appeal to a variety
of values, beliefs, and emotions which most people will agree
with.