joyce alacantara
Tabresha Simmons
10/01/2013
Analyzing essay
Who is the writer?
Joyce Alcantara is a defender of the law that states “you have to be 21 years of age to drink”. Alcantara background affects her argument because she knows victims of underage drinking and she has witnessed the outcome of it personally. Alcantara preconception is about lowering the drinking age is obviously a negative one due to the immaturity of her fellow peers.
What’s the deal?
Alcantara directly states her purpose by laying out facts and logic reasons supporting her argument of why the drinking age shouldn’t be altered. Alcantara is trying to encourage congress to not lower the drinking age because of immaturity and unbearable consequences. Alcantara argument relies heavily on logic information due to the sights and data information she informed us with. Alcantara did not have a hidden agenda. Everything Alcantara said was direct and in the open.
Are you talking to me?
Alcantara audience is obviously the congress because they are the ones who have to consider passing or not passing the drinking law. Alcantara thinks the audience holds the value of making a war a better place if the drinking age isn’t altered with, or trashing it and making our incidents rate go up if it’s lowered. Alcantara sees the audience as uniformed because she is trying to inform them on why it would be bad to lower the drinking age.
What’s the topic?
The topic of this argument would be the consequences of lowering the drinking age. Alcantara wrote about this topic to encourage congress not to alter the drinking age. Alcantara covered every basic of her argument well.
What started it?
What set the stage for this argument was the consideration of lowering the drinking age. Social triggers that made this argument become in full effect was the saying old enough to fight old enough to marry old enough to drink, and also the army men on base that wasn’t allowed to drink because of the age. Political triggers
10/01/2013
Analyzing essay
Who is the writer?
Joyce Alcantara is a defender of the law that states “you have to be 21 years of age to drink”. Alcantara background affects her argument because she knows victims of underage drinking and she has witnessed the outcome of it personally. Alcantara preconception is about lowering the drinking age is obviously a negative one due to the immaturity of her fellow peers.
What’s the deal?
Alcantara directly states her purpose by laying out facts and logic reasons supporting her argument of why the drinking age shouldn’t be altered. Alcantara is trying to encourage congress to not lower the drinking age because of immaturity and unbearable consequences. Alcantara argument relies heavily on logic information due to the sights and data information she informed us with. Alcantara did not have a hidden agenda. Everything Alcantara said was direct and in the open.
Are you talking to me?
Alcantara audience is obviously the congress because they are the ones who have to consider passing or not passing the drinking law. Alcantara thinks the audience holds the value of making a war a better place if the drinking age isn’t altered with, or trashing it and making our incidents rate go up if it’s lowered. Alcantara sees the audience as uniformed because she is trying to inform them on why it would be bad to lower the drinking age.
What’s the topic?
The topic of this argument would be the consequences of lowering the drinking age. Alcantara wrote about this topic to encourage congress not to alter the drinking age. Alcantara covered every basic of her argument well.
What started it?
What set the stage for this argument was the consideration of lowering the drinking age. Social triggers that made this argument become in full effect was the saying old enough to fight old enough to marry old enough to drink, and also the army men on base that wasn’t allowed to drink because of the age. Political triggers