ate low, but fails to support his suggestions. He suggests cutting taxes but fails to explain who will pay for the various crime-prevention programs and who will pay for an increase in prison sentences. If there are going to be people in jail for longer amounts of time, who pays for them to live? Do we start charging criminals for staying in jail? Another point the author mentions is imprisonment for life, but he fails to mention the fact that life in judicial vocabulary means twenty years.As discussed in my essay, the author failed to successfully use the three appeals of rhetoric. He wasnt very creditable to his job; he doesnt seem to know what exactly his stance is. Emotionally he appealed to the opposite of his so-called view. Also, Freeman does not balance his writing and does not give reasons his plan is logical. All of these factors made his column in the USA Today a ghastly example of rhetoric....
