Classical Principles of Argument Essay

Hire our professional essay experts at who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at an affordable cost.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Select the Eassy reading  BELOW

Analyze how the author you chose used classical principles of argumentation–ethos, pathos, logos--and how the principles relate to authority and each other.

Write a strong thesis statement and prove it in the body of the paper. Do some focused prewriting for your essay in which you consider how the author uses the classical principles of argumentation and why it is effective.

Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper analyzing how an author used the classical principles of argumentation–ethos, pathos, and logos–in his or her essay, and how these principles relate to authority in a chosen essay.

Support your claims about the essay with specific examples.


Chapter 2 Lynch Essay

Terrorism Essay

22 July 2004

The Horrors of Terrorism

Terrorism is much like a parasite, relying entirely on the lifesustaining

f luids of civilization for sustenance. Like science fiction

horrors, terrorism lies in the minds and hearts of evil-minded people,

sucking the life f luids of society, leaving fear in the hearts of victims

wherever it strikes. It grows, thrives, and spreads, darkening the

lives of the innocent and the jaded alike. As a result, society must

learn how to deal with this hidden parasite, this ephemeral demon,

this horribly real nightmare. We must tread this path with caution.

In an attempt to stop terrorism, we do not want to become terrorists


The issues of how and when it is necessary for society to deal

with terrorism have, fortunately, already begun to be discussed.

Hugh Segal, for example, discusses the very problems of when

and how to deal with terrorism in his article “Accomodating Evil:

Sometimes, Military Action Is Proper and Necessary. Is This Such

a Time?” Segal discusses the consequences of dealing with and,

conversely, not dealing with U.S.-aimed terrorism based in the

Middle East. He specif ically discusses military action. On the one

hand, military action will result in unfortunate collateral damage—

innocents will die and buildings, stores, and other structures

that have little or no ties with terrorism will face destruction.

Governments that condone and even back terrorism will kill their

countries’ citizens in the attempt to harm their enemies. On the

other hand, he says, those same governments will still harm their

citizens: such governments squash freedoms and harass their

citizens. Penalties for infractions, however minor, can be harsh.

Indeed, the consequences of either option, whether military action

or complacency, are bleak indeed, as Segal presents them: harm

comes to innocents whether military action is taken or not.

Innocents are harmed either way.

Another consequence is offered in Randall Hamud’s ar ticle,

“We’re Fighting Terror, but Killing Freedom.” This dire outcome that

Hamud describes is one that often accompanies terrorism and war.

This consequence, born out of fear and hate, manifests itself in

harassment of certain peoples based mostly on a common ancestry

with those whom are truly at fault. For example, during World War II,

Japanese Americans were arrested, interrogated, and put into camps

for fear of what they might do. Similarly, Americans of Middle

Eastern descent are now being harassed and arrested for fear that

they will participate in terrorist activities. Hamud provides examples

of what he has faced. He speaks of death threats that he has received

through the telephone and other means. Hamud also speaks of some

of his clients, arrested primarily for their ancestry. In one case, his

clients were arrested because suspects in the September 11, 2001,

hijackings met and befriended them. These clients were arrested not

because they were believed to have participated in the hijackings but

to testify against the suspected hijackers. Essentially, Hamud is

talking about a consequence of terrorism that goes beyond physical

misfortunes and goes truly and deeply into the realm of the mind and

emotions (Hamud).

Related to the harassment and prejudices of innocent Americans

is the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of torture. Certain

rules, which have been established by the Geneva Convention and

other treaties, govern how prisoners of war are to be treated. Ruth

Wedgwood and R. James Woolsey discuss in their Wall Street Journal

article “Law and Torture” the Convention against Torture (CAT), a

treaty ratified by the United States in 1994. Torture, according to

CAT, is “the intentional inf liction of severe pain or suffering,

whether physical or mental . . . on a person for such purposes as

obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”

(qtd. in Wedgwood and Woolsey). The treaty goes on to say that

torture, under any conditions, is wrong (Wedgwood and Woolsey).

In recent years, however, there have been incidents when the rules

against the use of torture have been ignored, even tossed aside, as

pointed out by Jonathan Gatehouse in his article “Photo Finish?”

Gatehouse points out the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, where horrible

things happened to prisoners, including rape and physical assault.

American soldiers abuse prisoners in Iraq.

This and similar events have brought the issue of torture even more to the

forefront in terms of the treatment of prisoners of war. When torture is or is

not acceptable is the major question, and it is a question that is very

hard to answer. After all, terrorists are seemingly willing to use any

means to gain their desires: witness the events of September 11, 2001.

Torture, in comparison, would almost seem an acceptable means to rid

the world of terrorism. However, it is not. It brings the United States

and its allies down to the level of the terrorist.

Other problems also arise with the issue of terrorism. Perhaps the

largest hurdle, presented capably by Michael Ware in his article “Meet

the New Jihad,” is that terrorists do not really want to change. Most,

as presented by Ware, believe that what they are doing is right and

good. As Ware goes on to discuss, they also have plans. Indeed, Ware

states, “They [terrorists of Middle Eastern descent] want to

transform Iraq into . . . a training ground for young jihadist groups

that will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded

groups.” Essentially, those who practice terrorism are seeking to

ensure the survival of terrorism (Ware). If this is the case, when the

United States and its allies engage in tactics like torture to extract

information, they are doing very little to discourage terrorism. From

the point of view of the terrorists, these incidents of torture provide

justif ication for their actions. The photos from Abu Ghraib simply

provided the terrorists with one more reason to hate the West and

gave them yet another wonderful recruitment tool.

Terrorism is a horrifying prospect that must be dealt with soon.

While the duty of dealing with terrorism belongs to all society, the duty

will prove to be a very difficult, hazardous journey. Af ter all, there is a

knife’s edge between dealing with terrorism in proper, civilized ways

and dealing with terrorism by becoming terrorists ourselves.

Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper