Mcdonald's Court Case

Roughly 10 years ago a court case was introduced to sue McDonald's Corporation for knowingly selling defective products. The particulars of the case involved a woman spilling hot coffee on her-self and being injured very badly because of it. Public opinion was (and largely still is) strongly against the woman and her settlement. Her stepson wrote an article to argue that she was justified in receiving a settlement due to the defective nature of the product being sold. The claim being presented and advanced is the system worked; McDonald's knowingly and callously sold defective products and was rightfully forced to pay compensation. The author effectively employs many of the tools and concepts central to making a good argument. In evaluating the
The only cues one has to evaluate the author's credibility are those relating to his competence. Being the stepson of the victim, he is knowledgeable of the situation and the people involved. He also seems credible from his message elements; he has good usage of grammar and vocabulary. The author uses all three types of evidence to support his argument. The evidence to support the authors claim is restatements of evidence used in the court case against McDonald's. They are some of the same pieces of evidence the jury heard. Evidence by example is found in the story of his mother in law, Stella. She was injured by McDonald's coffee being so hot it hospitalized her when spilled on her lap. Statistics are utilized as well: "The corporation had a list of more than 700 burn cases". On the other side, McDonald's presented a statistician who stated the burn cases were "statistically insignificant". The author most likely included this seemingly pro McDonald's statement to show the heartlessness of big corporations; to make people feel like they treat the consumer as merely figures of cost versus profit. Testimony is the third type of evidence implemented. Both the examples of