Edward Koch and David Bruck write about their two very different opinions about the same topic, capital punishment. Koch wrote a very objective passage stating why he endorses the punishment, where Bruck wrote a very impassioned piece stating why Koch is “dead wrong” in every way, shape and form. Koch’s work did not attack anyone else’s opinion; it simply defended his feelings towards the matter while disproving the ideas that have been brought to him previously. Considering Bruck had Koch’s entire passage to look at, criticize and form a response to, one would think that he would have the much stronger piece, but in my opinion he did not. I found that he did not really form an argument very well at all.
Koch, in his professional manner, used Ethos very effectively, stating his past history with the topic and being a leader. These list of credentials do exactly as they are suppose to, make him seem credible. Bruck on the other hand did not bring up his experience in the matter, in fact I had to go to the small introduction above his work in order to find out his experience. Bruck did try to utilize Pathos in his vivid descriptions and clear emotions, trying to get to the readers at an emotional level
Both authors used logic, or Logos, but Koch used it much more effectively. Koch would bring up a logical opposing point and discredit it, using other credible sources or even the same source that the opposing point came from, such as religious scripts or works of great enlightenment philosophers. His evidence was very effective, at one point mentioning how natural law states how it is acceptable to “take a life in order to vindicate justice”. He also brought up how states rights are different than individual rights; extortion is illegal, but taxation is not, justifying that states have much higher powers that they can use. Bruck also used reason, but he also tried to incorporate more facts into his work, but I found gaping holes in his logic and each point he...