While the author makes his or her position clear from the evidence presented, he or she does not do a very good job of persuading the audience to take a similar stance. The majority of the article simply gives a history of discriminatory policy in the form of a few short anecdotes that have been reported in the various media. It is not until the final two lines of the article that the author begins to use provocative language to describe the law, citing it as a series of "due process violations, racial profiling and an even more broken immigration system."
All in all, the author makes a clear statement about his or her opinion of the law and presents logical evidence to support that position. However, using more incendiary language throughout the article may give readers a more clear call to action; this way, the article would be much more effective in garnering support to bring down an unfair law.
No comments:
Post a Comment