Rough Justice Argumentative Essay

Different countries have been known to deal with crime in different ways, some believe that we (Americans) should deal with criminals in a more serious and physical manner. In the article “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, it talks about how we should have more severe and physical punishment inside and outside of the U.S. After a teenage boy vandalizes a car in singapore. While in the editorial “Time to Assert American Values,” the writer attempts to persuade us and into thinking that the teenage boy, Michael Fey should not have been caned after vandalizing a car. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the

most relevant and sufficient evidence to support it because of the way the author uses credible sources to support his logical evidence.
After analyzing the author’s argument presented by “Rough Justice” the reader realizes that the argument has several strengths.

One of the key reasons that “Rough Justice” has a stronger argument than “Time to Assert American Values” is because “Rough Justice” has a lot of credible sources. One source adds “The American Chamber of Commerce said “We simply do not understand how the government can condone the permanent scarring of any 18-year-old-boy-American or Singaporean-by caning for such an offense” (Reyes 181). This quote strengthens the argument of whether “Rough Justice” or “Time to Assert American Values” is better because “Rough Justice” has very credible sources which include: The American Chamber of Commerce and The Singaporean government. The second key reason that “Rough Justice” has the best argument is because it also contains logical evidence. Another source comments “The U.S. government, the U.S. senate, and the U.S. media took the opportunity to ridicule us, saying the was to severe” (Reyes 181). This quote is significant because it is “based on a clear rationale” (Ancrille 178) which is the particular beliefs of the “U.S. government, senate, and media”(Reyes 181). Furthermore the main reasons that “Rough Justice” is the stronger argument is because it has a “clear rationale” (Ancrille 178), logical evidence, and it has credible

sources.
After closely reading “Time to Assert American Values,” the reader recognizes that is has several weaknesses.

One of the main problems with “Time to Assert American Values” is that it uses to much anecdotal evidence without enough logical evidence. “Time to Assert American Values” explains how “ it assumes that dissidents, democrats and formers in theses countries are somehow less authentic representatives of their cultures” (“Time to Assert American Values” 179). This quote tries to appeal to our emotions and persuade us to connect with their perspective, but what it lacks is credibility, and logical evidence. Without logical evidence this is just an opinionated editorial with too much bias. The final thing that this editorial lacks is credibility, yeah they put names of important people, but they have no quotes or facts of what the person said. “Time to Assert American Values” proclaims “President Clinton provided a sound example when he called for a pardon” (“Time to Assert American Values” 179). While this quote does give the name of former president Bill Clinton it neglects to give us information on what he actually said, therefore there is no actual logical evidence of the former president calling for a pardon in this

editorial.
Throughout both articles “Rough Justice” and “Time to Assert American Values” we see that “Rough Justice is Stronger because it has credible sources and logical evidence. After analyzing the two arguments the reader learns that “Rough Justice” is stronger than “Time to Assert American Values” because “Time to Assert American Values” is trying to appeal to much to our emotions and persuade us to see their point of view, that it forgets to add credible sources with ethical and logical evidence.