http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In the New York Times article ,"Lynch to Accept F.B.I Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry," the author, Matt Apuzzo, makes a claim that Lynch is making a just decision of treating Hillary's "investigation like any other case," even though the public is making arguments against it. Lynch, current Attorney General, and "retains all the legal authority as the nation's top law enforcement official." As such, the author tries to persuade the audience of his claim by raising Lynch's ethical appeals. Since Lynch is an a high position in terms of law, the author is advocating that Lynch has the proper authority to make such a bold move. Finally, the author uses a powerful logical argument to complete her article. He states,"Beyond the day-to-day workings of the Justice Department, there is precedent for explicitly relying on career officials to make politically charged decisions. Essentially, the author is arguing that political officials recruit skilled lawyers, and Lynch is making a move to break this "precedent." Therefore, Matt argues that Lynch ought to be supported.
I believe that you should add more commentary into each piece of evidence as too why the audience is persuaded especially on the second one.
ReplyDeleteI believe that going into more depth into your article will improve your writing. Also I can't seem to find the audience's theoretical and actual reaction in your second argument.
ReplyDeleteJoon:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to first note that the article has three authors: Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo, and Amy Chozick. While there is some complication when dealing with corporate authorship, for our purposes, you may consider the author to be a single entity. As to the commentary, I'm unsure whether we can say that there is a clear thesis presented in the article by Landler et al. If anything, this article seems to be just a relaying of information. It might be easier, in the future, to simply choose an article from the opinion sections of the news websites you look at. As a final point, focus on one concrete detail and be thorough in your commentary.