3. FOR THE BLOG write a contrast paragraph on the effectiveness of the two death penalty essays. Which of the two - Mencken or Kroll - do you find to be more effective in persuading you and why?


While Kroll and Mencken are arguing about the same topic, they are most definitely not arguing for the same side. Mencken uses a straightforward, logical, credible approach to persuading the reader into going for the support of capital punishment. Kroll uses a heavily emotional, firsthand account to give the reader a describe view into why the death penalty should not be carried out as it is. After reading both articles, I felt Kroll's use of pathos to persuade me was much more efficient in his argument. In paragraph 23, the sentence "He writhed for seven minutes, his head falling on his chest, saliva drooling from his open mouth." Kroll doesn't come outright and say he is against the death penalty, but instead he uses certain words with negative connotation to make us feel as if the death penalty is horrible. If Kroll was for it, we would realize if he described the murder with a certain tone of happiness or sadist voice. After we read sentences like the one above, we get a sick feeling to our stomachs. Kroll's pathos approach was effective in arguing the validation of his point to me, someone who is easily persuaded by emotion and feeling.