The Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/the-road-we-need-not-have-traveled.html?ref=editorialsandopinion
In the New York Times editorial "The Road We Need Not Have Traveled", the unidentified author urges the reader to recognize the long forgotten battle for human rights in the United States. Through the use of specific detail, syntax and diction, the author clearly succeeds in drawing in the attention of her reader to get her point across.
The details included in this editorial are probably the best part of the argument. They are slightly relatable while also including information I'm betting most people have never heard before. The author claims that "Mr. Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month alone." This not only grabs the reader's attention, but plays with our emotions and adds some level of sympathy, maybe not in this case specifically, but towards all those that have had torture inflicted on them. The author continues to include details of 9/11, using a date we all remember to help her argument. Details of the crimes of course, are deliberately not included, and this makes her point plain and simple; torture is not okay--period.
According to the narrator, the US has "in the last decade accepted too many damaging and unnecessary changes to its fundamental principles of justice and human rights." Using words like "Justice" and "human rights" are extremely useful in her argument, because most people would agree these are two good things, even though their specific definitions will very between people.
Lastly, the author's strong use of syntax makes the article a casual, easy going conversation, despite its serious topic. The first body paragraph begins with "Let’s start with the delay." Short sentences lead up to longer ones like the following where the narrator claims that "All of the men could have been brought to trial years ago, but President Bush decided he could ignore the Constitution."
By utilizing the techniques found in the editorial, the author of "The Road We Need Not Have Traveled" creates a strong argument against torture in the United States.
Very good essay. Short, sweet, to the point. It started off a little informal but that went away. I didn't notice any mechanical errors here. It's a little short, but it does all its jobs so I guess that's okay.
ReplyDeleteMy only criticism is stylistic. The way you're quoting works well in this paper but you may run into trouble in the future when entire quotes don't happen to fit so well into your sentences. That, and having a full sentence direct quote explain the idea for you seems a bit lazy. So consider using the main quote to create a paraphrased sentence, including smaller miniquotes if the wording in the original was particularly important or elegant.
I agree with Matt. He kind of said it all. Don't know what else I can say, but that you did a great job! Just make sure you use the quotes better in your essay. And even though it is "short, sweet, and to the point" you might want to add some more detail and more warrants to emphasize.
ReplyDelete