In Class Lab;Comparing blog posts

Both of our articles and Spriggs made their positions clear not only in the introduction but also in the conclusion. The writers of our articles determined the importance of the argument by invocating Paris attacks and 9/11, while Spriggs instead invoked what could happen. Our articles also explicitly state their positions when they explain how they believe that taking certain steps will help prevent terrorism. Spriggs used anecdotal evidence more than our articles, citing her families farmer friend. She also responded to varying views more often, such as how buying local can have negative environmental effects. All of them mentioned articles and statistics from other reputable news sources in order to support their stance, such as Spriggs citation of CNN. Spriggs first paragraph talks about how Americans can eat fruit that naturally would not be in season which by turn of causes consequences to local farms and the worldwide environment, our other articles acted similarly for their own stances, one of them claiming that lax gun control laws contribute to hundreds of deaths every year. Spriggs was also better at showing how things have changed over time, such as how the number of cows a farm milks has increased drastically from industrialized farms, something that other articles mostly neglected, instead focusing on more recent times. Sprigss also appealed to the values of the readers by citing how local farms create 10% more jobs than large ones, our articles appealed to the viewers values by mentioning the expensive toll of the Iraq and Afghanistan war, in terms of life and wealth.  The author of our articles also uses the ignorance of the general public concerning the word "terrorism" to springboard his own stance and condescension towards detractors in opinion to develop a tone of authority while Spriggs developed a tone of authority through proving her competence, not by capitalizing on condescension.