Legalization of Marijuana and Mainstream Culture

Photo by: Scott Beale 

Recently the debate about the legalization of marijuana has been a hot topic that has caught the attention of many news stations and politicians. With this being such a topic of conversation in the United States’ society, it has drawn many opinions from many people ranging from professionals to the common person. There have been different studies conducted by various sources that either support or refute the legalization of marijuana, each holding their own weight of importance to the topic. After doing further research, the pros and the cons seem to measure up pretty evenly against each other, so I am going to take an approach to the topic that will discuss two academic disciplines that revolve around the discussion of legalizing marijuana. I believe the two disciplines that are most relevant to the subject matter are the sociological (or social) discipline and the scientific (or health professionals) discipline. Sociologist look at legalizing marijuana in manners of how the legalization of the drug will change and become a part of what is considered mainstream culture and how the drug could bring in large amounts of revenue for local economies; while scientist and health professionals view the legalization of marijuana as an action that would increase drug related illnesses and the negative long term effects that are a result of marijuana usage in society.

The prohibition of cannabis (marijuana) in the United States has been around since the time of the first American colonist. Initially every colonist was ordered by King James I to grow a hundred plants per colonist strictly for the export of fiber (6). Cannabis was first prepared for medical purposes in 1850, but laws also came with the then new medical practice that created penalties for mislabeling drugs, adulterating them with undisclosed narcotics, and improper sale of those considered "poisons" (6). Since then, regulations on marijuana only increased and eventually the drug became illegal in all fifty states. It is important to the know the history of marijuana prohibition if one is truly understand why the legalization of the drug now is such a big issue in the United States. In the past there have been less regulations and laws regarding the use of marijuana, it wasn’t until marijuana was considered a drug that laws were made to make marijuana illegal. So what makes marijuana a drug? Marijuana has an active substance called tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC) which gives users a “high”. THC is what makes marijuana a drug because the substance induces altered states of consciousness like alcohol, caffeine, or cocaine and it directly effects one of the systems in the body, particularly the central nervous system (7). Will all this being said, it’s easy to see why legalizing marijuana is such a controversial topic.

Photo by: Torben Hansen 

On the social aspect of the legalization marijuana, many believe that if marijuana was legalized and became regularly available, then it would simply become a part of mainstream culture (4). In states like California and Colorado where marijuana is legalized for recreational use, new marijuana products are being developed to appeal to growing usage of the drug. Marijuana producers in these states believe that someday marijuana will become as common as alcohol and tobacco products (4). These small business owners want marijuana to become something that you would take and enjoy at a bonfire with beer and friends (4). This could very well become the new social norm if marijuana is legalized in the United States. It’s quite obvious that marijuana product producers and growers are all for the legalization of marijuana, but how does the general public feel about the topic? A study was done on adolescents where they were asked to feel out a survey on their view of marijuana (2). It turned out that 87-90.9% of the adolescents revealed that they disapproved of marijuana, thus the study concluded that individuals in birth cohorts that are more disapproving of marijuana use are less likely to use, independent of their personal attitudes towards marijuana use (2). So it seems that the younger people of the day disapprove marijuana, but other groups of Americans seem to have a different opinion. Views of the legalization of marijuana remain divided along partisan, age and ethnic lines. White, Black, and Hispanic Americans believe that marijuana should be legalized, but don’t necessarily think they would start using marijuana if it is legalized (5). Age groups of Americans ranging from 18-64 years of age think that the drug should be legalized while the age group 65+ years of age think it should not be legalized (5). The majority of Americans also believe that one should not receive jail time if they are in possession of small amounts of marijuana and they also believe that alcohol is more harmful to human health than the drug (5). As a whole, it looks that the American people support the legalization of marijuana, but if marijuana is legalized and becomes regularly available to them, it doesn’t mean they are more likely to use the drug. Marijuana would just become another option for the American people, similarly to alcohol and tobacco products. It just become a part of American mainstream culture and societal norms.

While it seems that most of the American population approves of the legalization of marijuana, there is still a reason while it is still illegal and that’s because of the health risks associated with the drug. Although smoking marijuana gives users a “high”, the drug could also leave users feeling its short term effects and if smoked regularly its long term effects as well. Once inhaled it takes the chemicals released by smoking marijuana to reach the brain in about two seconds, so it does not take long for marijuana to effect the body (3). Short terms effects caused by smoking marijuana are sensory distortion, poor coordination of movement, lower reaction time, and increased heartbeat while long term effects include reduced resistance to common illnesses, personality and mood changes, study difficulties, and lack of motivation (3). There was a study conducted to determine whether medical marijuana users are different from recreational marijuana users. They examined similarities and differences in important clinical characteristics between users of medical marijuana and users of recreational marijuana and found that there are little differences between the two users (1). This being said, all marijuana users prone to experience the negative effects of marijuana whether they’re a medical or recreational user. Smoking marijuana is still smoking marijuana, there’s no way to avoid the possible negative outcomes that come with using the drug (1). The scientific aspects of marijuana and its chemical composition is what professionals fear could be harmful to the society. If marijuana is legalized, there is the possibility that the number of illnesses associated with the drug will increase and the possibility that the American people will abuse the drug.

Photo by; Mike Mozart

The social discipline and the scientific discipline associated with the topic clearly have two different approaches to the topic of legalizing marijuana. The social discipline used pros that come along with the legalization of marijuana like economic growth in the marijuana industry, the increase of social norm and the use of marijuana in social situations, and statistics that showed Americans believe that marijuana should be legalized. This discipline also included a study that stated that adolescents disapproved of marijuana, meaning that there more than likely wouldn’t be an increase in underage usage of the drug. The scientific discipline used scientifically proven negative effects that are associated with smoking marijuana and the possible increase in marijuana related illnesses. This discipline also included a study that concluded that there are little differences between medical and recreational marijuana users, thus stating that no matter how one uses the drug, they will still feel side effects associated with using marijuana. Both disciplines used styles that reflected their mood on the topic. The sociological discipline used a writing style that approached the topic with a laid back, supportive mood while the scientific discipline approached the topic with a more critical, apposing mood. Both disciplines used their own unique strategies to approach the topic of legalizing marijuana to express their different views on the topic.
In conclusion, the topic of legalizing marijuana in the United States can be approached by many different disciplines, each with its own opinion and strategies that it uses to convey their ideas. Disciplines are inclined to have obvious outlooks on particular topics, so it is important for one to be aware of all types of disciplines that relate to controversial topics. The legalization of marijuana is such a hot topic in America because of the different perspectives and attitudes developed by disciplines. One could also conclude that it is because of different disciplines that topics can be disputable, thus developing different opinions that relate to one particular topic of discussion. The legalization of marijuana has evident pros and cons thanks to the different disciplines that relate to this debatable topic, thus it will ultimately come down to whether the American people feel that marijuana is a drug that could become a part of mainstream culture in the near future.

Works Cited

1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajad.12270/full



2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03485.x/abstract



3. http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana3.htm



4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/24/marijuana-industry-mainstream_n_6195194.html



5. http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/section-2-views-of-marijuana-legalization-decriminalization-concerns/



6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States



7. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana 

Sports and Concussions: An Unfortunate Bond

Photo By: Brian Sewell

We’ve all seen it; an NFL running back get blasted on a helmet-to-helmet hit, or basketball player take a wrong fall before banging their head onto the hardwood. Perhaps one of the biggest flaws of competitive sports in today’s world: the concussion. Concussions are becoming too often occurrences in sports and are constantly overlooked. This is a significant subject because of the long-lasting and sometimes fatal effects that can occur. Of the varied opinions on the topic of concussions in sports, I will discuss how the two academic disciplines of educators/health activists and sports enthusiasts clash while discussing the possible reduction of these fierce head injuries. 

Football has the highest prevalence of concussion, but in similar sports, concussion rates are higher in females than they are in males. A concussion carries symptoms that can often interfere with school, personal relationships, and participation in sports. Cognitive and physical rest as well as neuropsychological testing are widely known as backbones of concussion management before the return to a sport, however, both the cause and prevention techniques are debated heavily between two contrary disciplines. The injury is so common that it often goes unreported by younger and less matured athletes, which is why Health Activists believe that once awareness levels on the causes, symptoms, and long-term effects of concussions are raised, concussion occurrence will fall with it. The opposition to this theory is an approach that is often put forth by sports enthusiasts. This idea is that it’s up to professional sports associations such as the NFL or MLB to protect athletes from the dangers of concussions, through rule changes and medical policies. The article (Miller, Collins 2015) presents an imposing example of the point of view of people in both health and education fields. The authors of this article are considered members of that discipline and claim that with the awareness of the symptoms and long-term effects of concussions, athletes will be in a better position to prevent head injuries and dramatically reduce their chances of suffering a concussion. They believe that instead of rule changes in sports at the high school level and above, education programs are a more effective way to create safer playing fields for athletes, and include the claim that rule changes can possibly increase the instances of concussion.

To further persuade the audience, the authors of the article include examples of efforts that have already taken place such as the one below:

Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin, for example, created the phrase, "Don't hit the head. Don't use the head" as a way to extend efforts to cut down on the number of concussions incurred by players from his roster. The Steelers, in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's sports medicine and concussion program, launched a campaign to educate young football players on safer tackling techniques. Through the distribution of pamphlets, posters, and other informational material, Tomlin and his team hope to teach amateur players and their coaches how to maintain a desired level of play while reducing the incidence of on-field concussions. (Miller, Collins 2015)

Photo By: Nathan Rupert

Many other coaches around the NFL have started to implement team policies regarding helmet-to-helmet hits, and health activists ensure that a collective effort to educate athletes at all levels in terms of the symptoms and possible long-term effects of repeated head injuries will influence them to practice safer techniques and avoid the dangerous play. Health activists argue against the theory that rule changes are necessary towards limiting concussions. For example, one of the most controversial rule changes in the NFL was moving the kickoff point from the 30 to 35 yard line. This change was supposed to reduce possibilities of concussions on kickoffs, however, kickers in the league started to kick the ball higher, which only gave these fast and strong athletes more time to run at full speed down to the other end of the field. Obviously, this technique could be seen as one that would cause an uptick in injuries.

Sports Enthusiasts can make the fair claim that despite being educated and aware about the symptoms and long-term effects that come with concussions, athletes will ignore any symptoms sustained and continue playing their sport. The article (Castillo, 2015) proves that claim about athletes, of high school football in particular. According to the author, this was the case with about half of high school football players that were surveyed in a study. Along with that statistic, “A little less than half of the students surveyed in a new study also said that they wouldn't report concussion symptoms to their coach. This was in spite of the fact that the majority of the players had knowledge about the serious risk of injuries from playing football from a concussion.” A case can be made here that athletes, particularly of youth, are not responsible enough to take care of their own future, so it should not be left into their own hands.

The claim that professional sports associations should have this responsibility is made in the article (Walter, 2015). The author believes that the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. should be the ones taking action to help reduce the instances of concussions that are taking place during competitive play. This includes the upgrading of protective gear and equipment, more uniform development of medical diagnostic concussion policies, and more severe penalties for those who take part in dangerous efforts to injure others. The authors best argument is an example regarding MLB Baseball:

In baseball, for instance, a helmet has been developed that can withstand impacts of balls traveling up to 100 miles per hour. Almost all professional pitchers throw at least 85 miles per hour, and most exceed 90 miles per hour with their fastball. However, Major League Baseball, the organization that regulates uniforms and has fined a player for wearing oversized wristbands, has yet to mandate the wearing of this particular helmet. Instead, the current helmet is designed to withstand only a 70-mile-per-hour impact, equating to the speed at which an average high school pitcher might throw. (Walter, 2015)

The claim can seem persuading after reading that example and realizing that a simple task such as upgrading the equipment can serve as a huge benefit to both the athletes and the sport itself. As easy as a simple rule tweak by National Associations may sound, it is believed by many that professional sports don’t see concussions as a major problem that needs to be fathomed. Ted Johnson, a former NFL linebacker, recently sat down on the Damon Amendolara show on CBS Sports Radio and said that the NFL doesn’t view concussions as an issue. Watching professional football and keeping up with news around the league allows you to realize how common concussions have been in the sport, and because of that you can lose sight of the severity of these head injuries. Ted Johnson won multiple Super Bowl titles as a member of the New England Patriots and retired mid-2000s after suffering countless concussions. When asked whether or not the NFL thinks that concussions are a problem, his response was notable: 

Photo By: Anthony May

The biggest impact of making people more aware (of head injuries) is it’s really had an impact on the lower levels,” Johnson said. “Moms, dads, parents are more nervous about their kids playing football because of what they hear about the NFL players and the problems they’re having. That’s where it’s really had the most impact. But the NFL office – and to some degree the NFLPA, the union – it’s not going to be an issue for them because the fans don’t care. ‘Just show me my football. I don’t want to know what’s behind the curtain. I don’t even want to talk about my game being threatened and maybe losing my game because of something like this. Just have my football and I don’t want to worry about it.’ So to answer your question, I don’t think they even look at it as an issue at all. (CBS Sports, 2015)

This is a great example that allows you to look at the big picture from a revenue perspective. Not only does the NFL want to lure in their fans with it’s money-making intensity during games, but NFL players are paid very well and know the risks that come with suiting up on Sunday’s.

Overall, there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the debate that may lead you to think that there will never be a way to slow down the instances of concussions in competitive sports at all levels. Sports viewers and athletes across the world have become accustomed to a certain fierceness in sports. Should I allow my child to play dangerous sports? Are my kids going to be able to recover adequately if they were to suffer a concussion? Will they be protected by protocols? These are all questions that parents need to ask themselves when considering allowing their child to compete in sports growing up. At some point, the responsibility of future health and quality of life needs to be weighed in.

Work Cited

Castillo, Michelle. "Most High School Football Players Would Still Play after Concussion." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 6 May 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.”

"Ted Johnson: 'NFL Doesn't View Concussions As An Issue'"The DA Show CBS Sports Radio. N.p., 5 Oct. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.”

Walter, Andrew. "Counterpoint: Professional Sports Associations Should Protect Athletes From Concussions." Points Of View: Concussions In Pro Sports (2015): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.”

Miller, Steve, and Linda Rice Collins. "Point: Increased Education And Awareness Will Reduce Sports-Related Concussions." Points Of View: Concussions In Pro Sports (2015): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.”

Concussions in Sports

Concussions in Sports

Photo by Jerome Carpenter
Go Pack!

Ever since its creation in the 1880s, football has been the most popular sport in America. Americans love fast-paced, high-action, sports. According to Forbes.com, the NFL receives around $7-8 billion dollars per year, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wants to increase that number to $25 billion by the year 2027. With numbers like these, the NFL has become a massive industry, and will most likely be around for a while. That being said, there do remain things that challenge the NFL. One of the largest problems the NFL has faced is the issue of injuries. More specifically, brain injuries. Doctors understand why an ankle gets broken or why a tendon gets torn, but injuries to the brain are more complicated. Concussions are one of the most common types of injuries in football. In the past 4 years, there have been around an average of 138 concussions per year. The NFL, for a while, did not seem willing to acknowledge that playing football could result in brain diseases. The NFL was brought to Congress, heckled by neurologists and neuropathologists, and even sued by former football players who demanded some sort of compensation for their injuries suffered during their time in the league. The rising issue of concussions in sports has surfaced more prominently in recent years. Through pathos, ethos, and word choice, concussion related articles make their argument on this topic. While the political side of this issue involves the intervention of Congress and the NFL’s use of political diversion, the technique of distracting from a major issue, the neurological side uses scientific data to illustrate why the way that the NFL deals with concussions remains subpar. As this debate continues, it has resulted in changed rules, and could result in more added regulations to the sport of football.

The concussion controversy first rose after the death of Mike Webster, a former center for the Pittsburgh Steelers. He had signs of dementia at only 50 years old, he couldn't sleep, and he couldn't complete a sentence. When his body was examined in an autopsy, Dr. Bennet Omalu, a neuropathologist, looked at his brain and noticed that on the outside it looked completely normal. This concerned Omalu and he studied it more carefully. After further investigation, Omalu discovered that Webster’s brain had signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease that mimics dementia or Alzheimer's disease. This was the first case of CTE found in a football player. Dr. Omalu’s discoveries were published in the magazine Neurosurgery and the NFL fought back, saying football did not result in brain injuries. This was the first time the NFL started using political diversion to distract the public from finding out more from what Omalu stumbled upon. However, this ended up being the first of an eventual 87 out of 91 football players’ brains that were found with CTE. Ever since the first case of Webster, more and more brains are being examined.

Photo by Parker Anderson

When the NFL was first being challenged about concussions, they did everything they could to prevent the truth from going out. Some people coined it the “League of Denial”, denying every piece of opposition that was brought against it by doctors and scientists. This strategy of denying became what is known as the politics of diversion. Political diversion is “[w]hen people create buzzy, puffy, talking points to distract the focus from larger issues” (2). The NFL has been engaged in this activity for years when the word “concussion” was brought up. In fact, every time Dr. Bennet Omalu presented new information, the NFL would immediately take action stating that his data was false. Omalu became an enemy of the multibillion dollar organization. He found CTE in multiple football players’ brains, and time and time again the NFL opposed him. They hired doctors and physicians that would insist that no connection existed between football and head trauma, instead of doctors that would present the facts and be openly honest. While the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, was being questioned in Congress, he gave incredibly weak answers about player safety, responding with long answers to avoid the actual questions asked - the definition of politics of diversion. The NFL was derailed after this encounter with Congress, and was instantly forced to do something about their concussion protocols. Currently, there are no strict set rules regarding concussions and when players can return to action; everything is based on whenever the team doctor clears the athlete to play or not. Unfortunately, teams do not have a specialized neurologists on the sidelines of games to diagnose concussions, and a team doctor usually makes that decision. The source about the political side of this argument seemed to use pathos in order to persuade to the audience that the NFL is evil in a way. By giving examples of players that were the victims of concussions, and stating that they were “rushed back onto the field,” it creates a feeling of dislike towards the NFL. In fact, most sources that brought up this issue depict the NFL as this greedy organization that cares very little about its players. Also, this article presents its own information, an appeal to ethos, by stating that concussions are a “clinical uncertainty” and even quotes The Summary and Agreement of the 2nd International Conference on Concussion in Sport in saying, “the science of concussion is at an early stage, and therefore management and return to play decisions remain largely in the realm of clinical judgment on an individualised basis” (1). By appealing to ethos this way, it establishes the author’s credibility, and allows the reader to know that what they are reading has been fully researched and remains unflawed. There is still work to be done on the concussion protocols, as it is definitely far from perfect, but the numbers of concussions have decreased since 2012, which signals gradual improvement.

Photo by Allan Ajifo

The science behind the concussions occurring in NFL football players has been found to be more interesting than what was first thought about concussions. At first, in the mid 1900s, concussions were thought of as minor injuries. The expression “getting your bell rung” was used often in describing concussions, and most of the public did not think much of them at all. Even NFL coaches did not consider them very serious either. Coaches Bill Belichick and Tom Coughlin were known to pressure their players into playing, despite how long they were supposed to remain sidelined (1). Neurology, the study of the nervous system (brain and spinal cord), and neuropathology, the study of diseases in the nervous system, play the biggest role in studying sports related head injuries. Two of the most important people in the study of CTE were Dr. Bennet Omalu and Dr. Anne McKee. Omalu was the first to discover CTE in a football player's’ brain, and his findings were what sparked the war against the NFL. Concussions are more severe than the public first thinks. Technically, it is defined as a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), not just getting a headache. In fact, it has been suggested that concussions “speed up the aging process” in a way. In the scientific article on this particular topic, the author uses a large amount of scientific data to appeal to ethos. The article presents its own study that it made on sports concussions and aging. It provides visual aids in order to help the reader understand its argument more clearly, as most of this article is written in an elevated scientific fashion. When a football player gets hit in the head, it can result in “cortical thinning in regions more vulnerable to the aging process” and “episodic memory and verbal fluency decline” (3). Memory and verbal decline are generally observed in the elderly, not 40 to 50-year-old retired football players. However, brain function anomalies detected in retired athletes who sustained 3 or more concussions have shown memory and motor system dysfunctions, a clinical condition that can be defined as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (3). MCI-diagnosed athletes or individuals display cognitive decline, but they show it without showing it. They do not exhibit any difficulties or impairments on everyday activities. Overall, this source was very informative, and contained a significant amount of scientific data. Adding such data improved the author’s credibility, and makes the reader think very highly of the author as well.

This debate over concussions from both a political and a scientific side has been ongoing on and off for years, even a couple decades. As more evidence suggests football leads to brain disease, the more the NFL is required to spend on researching player safety. It seems to be a never-ending process. Nonetheless, as we continue into the future, football will most likely remain America’s number one sport. More advancements will be made in player safety, and better equipment will be created for the players to use. The total number of concussions per year has decreased significantly since 2012, so the NFL is on the right track, but just with some more work to do. Also, one is not to forget that the players in the NFL do choose this profession. Richard Sherman, a Seahawks cornerback in the NFL, explains this very well. Players have seen the research, and know now more than ever that football can result in brain injuries. They play because they want to play and love what they do. Sherman said about the concussions in football: “If you don’t like it, stop watching” (5). He states that he does think about his future, but sometimes things happen you cannot plan for, so he wants to enjoy his life in the now. As long as the players know what they are doing, then that should be more comforting. The NFL is learning and doing more about concussions than ever before now, and it will continue to do so as long as concussions remain a problem.

Works Cited

1. Goldberg, Daniel S,J.D., PhD.(c). "Concussions, Professional Sports, and Conflicts of Interest: Why the National Football League's Current Policies are Bad for its (Players') Health." HEC Forum 20.4 (2008): 337-55. ProQuest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

2. http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2013/09/14/nfl-concussions-roger-goodell-mlb

3. http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/5/1159.full.pdf+html

4. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/league-of-denial/

5. http://mmqb.si.com/2013/10/23/richard-sherman-seahawks-concussions-in-the-nfl

The Rhetorical Devices of Argumentative Articles

Picture from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

The single, most country changing event happened back in September 11th 2001, where radical Islamic terrorist attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This attack instilled fear into all Americans, creating panic and chaos in the general public. Amongst the chaos, many people proposed their opinion on how the country needs to respond to these events. The events on September 11th brought terrorism and terrorist organizations to the front of national security, and forced everyone to think about possible solutions. Many people debate the way America has responded to terror and wonder what steps must be taken to secure a safer, better future. Researchers from University of Princeton and Fordham University of Law performed studies to see how to stop the growth of terrorism and what way counteracts terrorist the most. McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther, from University of Princeton, propose that policy makers must deal with the dilemma: prevent terrorism through likelihood of attack or prevent blame by limiting terrorist attacks the public finds blameworthy. However Lagos, and Rudy, from Fordham University of Law, support the idea of creating a more definitive definition for the word “terrorism” and call on U.N. powers to aid America’s battle against the terrorist. McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use clear language, technical graphs, and small concise paragraphs while Lagos, and Rudy use bullet point lists, historical facts and dates, and past tense to argue for their side of the terrorist debate. Although the articles have similar motives, they both effect how the reader interprets their argument through diction, syntax, and format.

The first article written by McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther uses very clear, analytical language to convey their research in an understanding way. Their research uses many statistics to set up their premises in a logical fashion. The authors detailed how they would conduct their research with multiple studies. Much like a lab report, the authors wrote the procedures in past tense explaining the process of collection information and what they thought would be the most effective way of conducting the experiment. In Study 1, the authors explain who the participants were followed by procedures. They explain that they have questioned one hundred eleven undergrad students on potential terrorist actions. The researchers looked for the students raw reactions and who the students think deserved the blame. To increase the data collected, the researchers split the survey into two types with one survey having a terrorist attack with 50 victims and the other survey having 500 victims. This split shows that the researchers wanted to collect data to see if the number of deaths effects who needs to be held accountable. The researchers conduct more experiments with undergrads students filling out many questionnaires. By thoroughly explaining their process, the authors present transparent research that supports their claim and gains credibility with the reader. Throughout the article, the authors collect data and clearly explain it with common diction so that all types of educated reader can understand the conclusion.

In the other article, Lagos and Rudy use lists to convey facts in simple way to comprehend. Their paper contains long paragraphs with complex concepts in each one. By inserting lists into the paper, it allows the reader to remember key points and facts that will be needed later in the paper. For example, the authors used list to provide a short summary of a human rights article in order to provide new information without taking away from their paper and the argument at hand. By using these list and bulleted off sections, it keeps the reader focused and open to the material at hand. The article is also broken into sections to compliment the reader’s reading experience. The authors of this article also use past tense and “to be” verbs when making a point. Since their research was finished in the past, using past tense to describe the results and conclusions makes logical sense. Their use of “to be” verbs also creates a more passive tense in the paper allowing the readers to easily comprehend the content. Since the paper contains longer paragraphs, the use of past tense and “to be” helps the authors get their point across.

Another rhetorical technique used by McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther is graphs and short paragraphs. Throughout the article, McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s use of graph provides a fresh way to interpret the stats without having to deal with too much text. Graphs catch the eye of the reader and cause them to wonder what the graph shows and how it can be applied. The intelligent way the authors displayed their research presents the results to the readers in an easy, comprehendible way. For example, the authors uses bar graphs to construct effective displays of terrorist attacks and how much blame would be assigned for certain types of attack. These bar graphs drive home the important results from their research and bolster their argument with concrete, well thought out evidence. The graphs and charts also provide a change of pace from just reading words, it uses a different part of the brain preventing readers from getting bored or loosing attention. Also McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use short, driving paragraphs to keep the reader interested. These short paragraphs and the use of first person pronouns like “I” and “we,” establish the idea that the reader and the author performed this research together. Like the other article, McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use past tense to create when describing their research and conclusion, however the use of first person pronouns creates a more personal connection with their research. Through the use of graphs and first person pronouns, McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther establishes a personal connection with the readers and creates a flowing argument with understandable research.

Unlike McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s article, Lagos, and Rudy use many historical facts, dates, and treaty’s to back up their theory to stop terrorism. Both articles have numbers but Lagos, and Rudy’s numbers focus more on historical significance than statistics. Lagos, and Rudy choose to focus more on history because it benefits their argument more by seeking to redefine terrorism and call on the U.N. for military support. Without the historical importance of treaties, their argument lacks any foundation to stand on. Throughout their article, the authors explain how the current state of terror prevention started and the issues with the current system. Building a foundation and history for what has been done to stop terrorism, allows the authors to point out mistakes and methods to improve those mistakes. For example Lagos, and Rudy explain what an “international terrorist” is according to national laws in order to increase the urgency and validity of their paper. Without the current definition and how it became defined explained, the reader may not fully understand the severity of this issue and how the definition hurts terror prevention. The effective use of historic facts supports Lagos, and Rudy’s argument that the international definition of terrorist needs to change as well as how the world responds terrorism.

Both articles target separate audiences while still arguing on a similar topic. In McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s article, the authors target an audience that enjoys scientific research and statistics. By doing this, the authors effectively limit their audience to the people who most likely support their argument based on their style of evidence. Statistical analysis and graphs encourage the scientific audience to take this article seriously since it presents new research to the public. On the other hand, Lagos, and Rudy’s article focuses more on the historical audience, appealing to them through historical events, foreign relations, and dates. In doing this, the authors entice historians and politicians to dive into their research. The historical facts and heavy focus on international policy inform people of the political issues surrounding terrorism and their violence. While both articles call for change, each article appeals to a different demographic. Whether its’ with surveys and statistics or history and policies, both groups of researchers know that their research will affect people and change the way the current world deals with terrorism as well as moral issues.

How an author presents their writing through rhetorical devices and style affects who will read the writing and actually take something out of it. In the case of terrorist prevention, McGraw, Todorov, Kenreuther, Lagos, and Rudy use their unique writing style and rhetorical devices to present original research and back up their arguments on how to prevent terrorist attacks. McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use of short paragraphs and clear language complimented by simple charts presented information in an easy way to comprehend. The quick flow and powerful information backs up their argument, while not getting trapped in meaningless language. Whereas Lagos, and Rudy utilize sections, bullet points, and historical data to verify their argument. The segmented sections and bullet points break up the article into smaller understandable sections that improve the flow of the article. By bulleting lists, the author effectively creates easy to remember facts that the reader will use later in the article. The structured sections allow the reader to quickly recall important information that supports the author’s main argument. The author’s use of historical data and longer paragraphs brings in a different crowd than McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s article. Since the paragraphs are longer, it allows the authors to go into more detail about what is being done to combat this issue. Through the use of unique rhetorical devices and writing style, McGraw, Todorov, Kenreuther, Lagos, and Rudy effectively argue their points on what would be the most effective way to limit and stop terrorist.

Works Cited

Lagos, Enrique, and Timothy D. Rudy. PREVENTING, PUNISHING, AND ELIMINATING TERRORISM IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE: A POST-9/11 INTER-AMERICAN TREATY. LexisNexis® Academic. Fordham International Law Journal, 2003. Web. 03 Dec. 2015. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t&csi=12490&sr=TITLE%28%22Preventing%2C+punishing%2C+and+eliminating+terrorism+in+the+Western+Hemisphere+a+post-9%2F11+inter-American+treaty%22%29+and+date+is+2003>.

McGraw, Peter, A., Alexander Todorov, and Howard Kunreuther. "A Policy Maker’s Dilemma: Preventing Terrorism or Preventing Blame." A Policy Maker's Dilemma: Preventing Terrorism or Preventing Blame. Elsevier, May 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000185>.