Analysis Of Rough Justice Trojandro Reyes
In the article; Rough Justice by Alejandro Reyes the Author used a neutral writing to both support Singapore's idea of personal responsibility and the American values of law and orders from the individual.The Author was sure to build each claim with a supporting structured claim to support the first or in this case argue the claim. An example of these structures statements is found in paragraph five where the Author states a quote from Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew ; “the U.S does not restrain or punish individuals, forgiving them form whatever they have done. That's why the whole country is in chaos drugs, violence, unemployment and homelessness.” This statment I found interesting because the Author was not solely wrong putting this statement
into his artical being that he followed the statment with facts(found in chaspter 6) which argue the intencity of the punishment and penaltys in Singapore.
The Author in the Editorial by the New York Times was all one sided. It was against the Caning of Michael Fay and used a number of solid statements from the text to support their soul stance. A very good example of a stern claim in the Editorial I found was in chapter 2 stating; “So, the argumenmt goes, when Americans express outrage over a punishment that causes permanint scaring- in this case, caning- they are commiting an act of cultural arrogance, assuming that american values are intrinsically superior to those of another culture. This stament givin is very onesided, it easily said is a shaming of singapore toward america for caring so profoundly on the individual in this case Michuel Fay.
into his artical being that he followed the statment with facts(found in chaspter 6) which argue the intencity of the punishment and penaltys in Singapore.
The Author in the Editorial by the New York Times was all one sided. It was against the Caning of Michael Fay and used a number of solid statements from the text to support their soul stance. A very good example of a stern claim in the Editorial I found was in chapter 2 stating; “So, the argumenmt goes, when Americans express outrage over a punishment that causes permanint scaring- in this case, caning- they are commiting an act of cultural arrogance, assuming that american values are intrinsically superior to those of another culture. This stament givin is very onesided, it easily said is a shaming of singapore toward america for caring so profoundly on the individual in this case Michuel Fay.