the Death Penalty

Between the two writers that give different arguements for the abolishment of the death penalyt, Mencken and Kroll, it is obvious that Kroll's paper is more effective because it utilizes ethos and pathos while Mencken's paper only uses logos.

In his paper where he details the grim death of his good friend, Kroll continuously builds a case against the death penalty. By making the audience feel some of the pain he went through, he effectively makes them sympatherize for him and his friend; the main purpose of ethos. Combine that with the fact that he subtly uses pathos when he mentions that the stay of execution was issued by ten California judges, a direct use of pathos, and he presesnts a well built case.

Mencken's paper on the other hand uses logos, which when dealing with something very controversial, doesn't stand well on its own. Pure common logic with no specific examples or authority are the basis of his essay and that is why his arguement is flimsy. For people to be convinced it usually takes hard evidence of specific cases or great emotions which Kroll details in his paper. Logos is effective but not when it is the basis of on arguement.