• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.


Twelfth Response

Page history last edited by Lindsey Prato 9 years, 9 months ago

Okay, so up to this point, you have been told NOT to evaluate and now you are. However, an evaluation argument is not just a good/bad distinction. In order to argue for the value of something ethically or aesthetically, you first need to develop criteria from which you can evaluate. Each of the articles assigned argues whether something is good or bad, but does so on the basis of very specific criteria. Your task in this response is to pick out what criteria the author(s) are using and discuss how they are using it to make their argument(s). Use one or more of the articles. 200-250 words.

Kelly Klopocinski  

The article that I’m reflecting on is “The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?” the author of this article gives off a lot of different information and reasons why the death penalty is right, and why it should be used.  The article starts off with a quote "We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong."  The author first explains how the word “kill” shouldn’t be used for this quote. She explains how the words kill, murder, and execute all might have the concept cause it results to someone dying, but they are no where close to the same exact meaning.  Killing means to cause death and or self defense, murder means malicious killing, and to execute means to put someone to death because of them killing someone else.  She goes on to explain to her readers how she feels about the death penalty, “Executing murderers, however, prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims.”  This one feeling from the author really helps her argument. When I read this one statement I was automatically on her side about this issue.  It is very true if we execute murderers there is no way where they can possibly, kill someone again.  This way we can prevent more innocent people from dying. 

Erika Phillips


     In the Sample Student Evaluation argument by Rashaun Giddens, the paper was talking about a Stop Lost or Lost of Trust. This topic was based upon the military. The Stop Lost policy makes a lot of soldiers have to stay in the military beyond their contracts for volunteering. This came about because congress first gave the military the authority to keep soldiers after the Vietnam War when new soldiers were too few to replace departing soldiers. This should not have been a reason to keep people in the military. The congress should have came up with an suggestion stating that the soldiers have an option of staying pass their contracts or leaving. With the stop lost policy the came up Gidden came up with saying the lost of trust part because of the government not sticking to their word and letting the soldiers go when their contract was up. Even a draft would at least be aboveboard and honest said Giddens. He also said that our country must show the honor and respect deserved by those who fight, and stop loss undeniable dishonors and shows disrespect to our soldiers. The article also states that how do the government think the soldiers family feel by not being with their loved one. The soldiers wanted to serve their country for only the time that they signed for on their contract, not to stay for the rest of their lives.


Jonathan Bezenah


In the article "The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?" the author argues for the death penalty stating it should be used as a punishment for murder.  However, the author does not just merely state his claim, he provides a carefully crafted criteria used to convince his audience.  On of the main criteria he uses it to argue about the morality of capitol punishment.  The author uses main examples to prove that it is not morally wrong.  To do this he define definitions, such as murder, killing, and execution, and shows how each of these terms is different than one another.  The author also uses statistics which allows the readers to see the logical appeal of his argument.  Also, the author provides counter examples and argues against those who think the death penalty is morally wrong.  For example, he takes each statement of those arguing against it and disproves the argument in one way or another.  By doing so, it strengthens his argument because he removes any opposition to his argument.  From this article, one can tell that to successfully write an evaluation paper, one must first pick a criteria in which he or she can argue about why this makes their topic right or wrong.


Lindsey Prato

I am against the Death Penalty. I think its a bigger punishment for a murder to sit in jail for the rest of their lives than to be automatically  put on death row and wait for the day when their  life can be ended. If they sit in jail they have time to suffer for the crimes they have committed. To be killed by lethal injection, hanging, firing squad, lethal gas, or electrocution is like Christmas to these murders because they know they will not have to spend the rest of their lives sitting in a cell. “Murders get off easy being sentenced with the death penalty,” which I think it completely true. I believe it is wrong for a murder to kill someone and then the legal system will turn right around and kill them. I believe that there is no punishment in that. I think murders should sentenced to some sort of confinement so they have to realize what they did is wrong on all levels and the families of the victims know that they are miserable. I know that our tax money goes to keep them in prison but I feel that they should suffer just as much as their victims families do.




Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.