ESSAY THREE YEA BOOI

Matt Caples

Rhetorical Analysis

Final Draft

David Bornstien's article, For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine, puts the argument of treatment versus punishment for drug abusers into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides matched with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his piece effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own decision on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He states some facts that don't make an impact until later in the piece, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment saves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccessful. His facts surrounding treatment for drug abusers makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment. The way he describes the pros and cons makes it clear that the pros of treatment drastically outweigh the cons. The pros being that the success rate for treatment is drastically higher than the success rate for punishment and the con being the cost. This paragraph is a very good introduction to his argument. Bornstien takes his stand in the debate immediately and effectively provides facts and statistics to back up his reasoning for his stand on the debate.

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involved with prison gangs in order to receive the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society. It is clear from the way he made his case, that the cons of punishment outweigh the pros, the cons being that while in jail, many drug abusers get involved in gangs. By not really addressing any pros of punishment, it helps back his argument even more. All in all, this part of his argument is very effective at showing readers why punishment is not the solution for drug abusers. When the facts that he stated about treatment are compared the facts stated about punishment, this becomes very apparent.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfway houses, and detox facilities, abusers are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family counseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunately, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abusers, when sentenced, are sentenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvement of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him. The use of pathos in this last discussion of his paper solidifies his argument and is effective at drawing in readers to make the same conclusion that he makes.

The strategy he uses in his writing is very well played. He presents all the quotes and facts and statistics that back up his argument, which sets a good backbone for his argument. After his side of the argument and thoughts are set in stone, he then starts to explain the opposing side’s argument which doesn’t seem to have any solidity due to the facts and statistics that he stated. I think this is a good strategy because it makes his argument seem stronger than it really is. His argument for treatment is already strong, but the way that he presented it gave it more solidity than it really had. However, the downfall of this is it makes his argument very one-sided. He addresses the pros and cons of punishing drug abusers with jail time but doesn’t address the positives of jail time, by stating that there are none. The bias perspective that he takes in the argument is one of his only downfalls. Besides this, I think his argument is very sound. He did a good job at backing his statements up with facts, and even though he was bias, he presented facts and data from the effects of punishment for drug abusers. His use of pathos and ethos really help to draw in readers and builds up the credentials of his piece.

All in all, Bornsetien's argument is very sound and very effective. The way he pairs factual evidence with emotional evidence is very effective and gives no room for any other arguments. Before reading this article I was more on the side of punishment, even knowing the consequences of if such as gang violence. However, after reading it, it became clear to me that treatment is the real cure for drug abuse. Even though the piece is basis, it is an opinion piece and his argument is still clear and valid. David Bornstein’s piece, For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine, falsifies the doubters’ of the Untied State’s Rehab Care arguments. He addresses both sides, and even though he is obviously on the side of medicinal and therapeutic treatment for drug abusers, he still addresses the effects of punishment through jail time.

REWRITE REFLECTION and Draft

So far on my paper I have expanded each paragraph with more analysis and I've added stronger intro and outro sentenced. I also went through and fixed spelling errors and grammatical errors that I had. I decided to spend more time discussing the pathos and ethos, because that's a big part of what we learned about. I still want to expand more but I need some guidance on how to do so.

David Bornstien's article, For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine Rhetorical Analysis, puts the argument of treatment versus punishment for drug abusers into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides matched with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his piece effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own decision on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He throws some facts that don't make an impact until later in the piece, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment saves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccessful. His facts surrounding treatment for drug abusers makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involved with prison gangs in order to receive the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfway houses, and detox facilities, abusers are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family counseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunately, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abusers, when sentenced, are sentenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvement of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him.

Essay 3 Discussion

For Essay 3, I am going to revise Essay 1. I think if I had taken the time to revise and put in the extra effort to fix my thesis, it could have been an A paper. I plan on going back, re-working my thesis, and adjusting my paper to match it. The ad I picked works well with the assignment I just didn't put in the extra time and thought that was necessary to write a high quality paper. When rewriting my essay, I am going to make sure that I am not as repetitive, so that my paper flows a lot better than it does now. I also want to take the time, and analyze the ad some more, and in detail, put my findings into my paper. I need to come with a thesis that isn’t so obvious and I also plan on organizing my piece differently, so that it will flow and be easily understandable. Lastly, I want to re-work the way I described my ad, I want to describe it from top to bottom, instead of randomly pointing out details. All in all, my first essay had the potential to be an excellent piece, I just need to put in the effort to get it there and that’s why I’m choosing it. 

Matthew Caples

Rhetorical Analysis Final Draft

3/23/13

David Bornstien's article puts the argument of treatment versus punisment for drug abuseres into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides mathced with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his peice effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own desicion on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He throws some facts that don't make an impact until later in the peice, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment savves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccesful. His facts surrounding treatement for drug abuseres makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involoved with prison gangs in order to recieve the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfways houses, and detox facilities, abuseres are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family couseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunatly, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abuseres, when sentenced, are senctenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvment of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him.

All in all, Bornsetien's argument is very sound and very effective. The way he pairs factual evidence with emotional evidence is very effective and gives no rrom for any other arguments. Before reading this article I was more on the side of punishment, even knowing the consequences of if such as gang violence. However, after reading it it became clear to me that treatment is the real cure for drug abuse.