Writing a strong argument and a great essay at the same time is a difficult task. In Strom Thurmond’s essay, “Death Penalty Deters Violent Crime,” he tries to make a strong argument for why the death penalty should be a federal law. His argument is lacking in many ways, yet his execution of his essay succeeded.
Thurmond writes great points in his essay, but he lacks any hard evidence prove the points are worth listening to. He writes “the threat of capital punishment does deter violent crimes,” but he does not back his statement up with facts. The statement is just a statement and a wish with nothing to prove it. Having those statements in an argument, creates weak points that no one will be inclined to listen to. If he had given evidence of an experiment that a city has done about the effects of punishment on crime, then his argument would be stronger. He writes several syllogisms that have no proof of whether they are true or not. The statement “the American people agree with me,” is one of the stronger statements he writes in his essay. He uses the Gallup Poll…show more content… The use of the stories is a good idea; however, the stories provoke irrational responses to the argument instead of rational responses. He uses those stories to cater to the emotional side of his audience to get them to see that the death penalty is needed. Even though catering to the emotions is a powerful tool in arguing, the irrational responses given are often rethought after the emotions have settled. After Thurmond shares the stories, he states “the abiding citizens of this nation demand action on federal death penalty legislation, not life imprisonment legislation.” This statement he makes furthers the emotions of the audience to agree with his side of the argument. Rallying emotions helps win an argument with most people, but emotional arguments are not always great
