Tiffany

1. The writer did an argument that agrees with her, she mainly writes about how people

think about death penalty. She agrees to get rid of the death penalty, but she also put in

a little part where people are agreed with death penalty, just to see the contrast, so I

think she did a great job at explain that.

2. She chose to address a problem that whether people should agree or disagree with get

rid of death penalty. She put a few examples from the book to show that how different

people think about this idea. The prisoners who made crimes are affected by this idea.

3. Shes on the side that agree to get rid of death penalty, she said I know that their crimes

deserve to be punished but is ending their life making us any better?, that is the direct quote

from the essay she wrote. Also a quote from the examples she had, Although there still is a

cost to life without the possibility of parole Semel estimated that the cost would be just

over $11 million per year, as opposed to $150 million.

4. I think she has enough evidence to support her idea. She used examples that said

people in prison can still work for their family, but if death penalty really happened, they

cannot work anymore. I think she used 2 online resources which is not enough for the

final draft, but she still has time to fix it. Overall, I think the whole resources to

supporting her idea are great.

5. The author states two sides of the death penalty, people who agree with it and people

who disagree with death penalty.

Yanni
1. The writer is writing to the people that disagree. She sets points on why it is not a

good idea creating an argument.

2. The writer has chosen to address the death penalty. The writer has shown that this

issue affects them directly because she seems passionate about the topic and cares

about the situation even if it hasnt affected her personally. Inmates that have

wrongly been accused of a crime, families, etc. These are the people affected by the

death penalty. Statistics on cost and votes are used in order to connect the audience

with this issue.

3. The writer disagrees with it. The reasons that the write has for holding this position

are because first of all it is considered inhumane and more in depth reasons of why

it is just not right.

4. The quality is good since there is clearly shown facts on the cons of this law itself.

The quality of sources is explained thoroughly and simple which help the reader

understand. She does have sufficient amount of evidence.

5. The writer has brought up the opposing view and questioned if its the right thing to

do.