The author's diction in this article is much more formal and serious than the other articles I have read so far (it should be, this is a serious case that they're writing about) and this time there are parts actually written by the author instead of just a copy of the interview. There doesn't seem to be much of an emotional attachment to this article and it's more of a summary of what's to come in Iowa, "Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence is registered against the bill, which is expected for House debate Thursday. Laura Hessburg, the ICADV director of public policy, said the group fears increasing prison penalties could cause unintended consequences such as perpetuating cycles of violence and racial inequality." The tone is very detached because the author doesn't give their own opinion in the article. The purpose of the article was to explain the opposition that the DES MOINES bill is receiving and how the bill could actually make things worse for domestic abuse victims and even the government, "We should be figuring out ways to address these very important issues, but without sending even more people to jail." The author appeals to logos by using facts to discuss each side of the argument. People who support the bill say, "the bill will ultimately ensure repeated domestic abuse offenders are not eligible for early release too quickly following a conviction." People who appose the bill say "That's not going to change unless we find a way to get people into productive rehabilitation and give them the opportunity to have a healthy life." The author qualifies the argument which inherently makes the article weak but the facts provided on each side give a detailed explanation or the problem and makes both sides of the argument valid.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2017
Categories |