This news outlet is a much more liberal one and it claims that the travel ban makes the U.S. less safe and that the plan was ill-conceived. The article uses evidence such as the opinion of officials to back up their claim.

They also explain their reasoning for why it could make things more dangerous for the U.S. There may be new tensions between Americans fighting alongside people from the countries included in the entry ban. Because the ban could be propaganda for angry people from those countries to join groups such as ISIS out of hate for an American that has prettymuch given up on their countries entirely.

This is an example of the article explaining the reasoning behind wanting a Muslim ban in certain european countries. They say "more than a million refugees triggered a continent wide crisis" and "France has been hit by a number of Islamist terror attacks in recent years". By using this they justify the ban in those countries while not backing up the evidence they are using to back up the reasoning for wanting a Muslim ban.

This artile is a conservative view of the muslim ban, supporting it and even though it does not have direct evidence of why the ban is beneficial it does explain that the European Union used to not agree with President Trumps ban order, but now in recent polls, it seems that the tables have turned. They use statistics from a poll to show which countries would like a similar ban in their country, and it explains the reasoning for those numbers.

I had recently seen a vice video on facebook about this drug and its dangers. The audience the author is trying to reach is probably parents since they use the example of a womans son and keep refering to "kids" when tallkinhg about the dangers of the drug.

This article seems credible becuase they have evidence such as videos and comments from officials. The author appeals to our sense of fear and points out the possible dangers or tragedies that could have been very possible because of the breach in security. I travel pretty often so I was interested in seeing an example of how human error could make it more dangerous.

This was the reason this article caught my eye. I have a lot of friends who go to The University of California Berkeley and I heard from them that there was practically a riot when this speaker was coming to speak at their school. This article explains what Milos views are, which makes the conflict obvious between this highly conservative writer and the highly liberal student population at the university.

When I first read this article's title I expected it to be ridiculous, then after reading it, there is some truth but it si still ridiculous. Id like to research further about the companies and or organizations that came out with the statistics. So that I could see if there was possible bias or if they conducted a well thought out test that does not have much room for error. Also correlation does not mean causation. Just because test scores POSSIBLY dropped while Obama was in office does not mean he caused the drop.

When I first saw the title of this article I firmly thought that glass walls would be terrible and remembered what a great experience it was to be under and on the Tower. I thought these walls would deter tourists, and they probably will to an extent. However this article changed my mind somewhat after reading it. There are terror threats and recent attacks reinforce the idea that this major monument/target could be attacked in the near future. The protection of the monument is important but this article also points out that if a terrorist cant get to the tower then they wont have much reason to put people near the tower in danger.

This article is intended for people who are interested in sports, more specifically, international sports since it covers controversy about the track and field world Championships this summer. I chose this article because i am a huge fan of the Olympics and remember the recurring controversy over many of the the athletes from Russia. By using dates and examples from the past, the author can better support the idea that the doping has happened again and that the officials are trying to hide things.

Stephen Colbert is mocking Donald Trump's criticism of the media on the topic of not reporting acts of terror such as the "Bowling Green Massacre". Donald Trump's claim is that the media does not cover acts of terrorism. The media's claim, more specifically Colbert's claim is that the massacre did not in fact happen and that Donald trump is using this accusation to instill fear in people that there is even more terrorism than we hear about. Colbert, in his argument uses comedy to help convince people of his side and establish credibility as as intelligent reporter. He also uses repetition of negative words such as "weren't", "didn't", and "nothing" to instill in the audience that Trump is wrong. I was drawn to this because I like Stephen Colbert, and the recent political climate surrounding Donald Trump is interesting as well.

Koenig uses the literary tool of pathos in this statement to put us in the shoes of Mr. S, by saying that if we were going to pee on the side of the road that we would also want the privacy of going that far from the road since most people naturally would rather not be seen peeing on the side of the road. Now the audience can better sympathize with Mr. S for going that far into the forest to find privacy that any normal person would prefer.

Sarah Koenig uses this information as hard evidence to show another reason why this is a sketchy place. The numbers she uses appeals to the audience's sense of logos, because it is a known fact and the only other option is that the police did not find all of the bullet casings which would just improve her argument. She also, in the same sentence appeals to the audiences sense of ethos by legitimizing the argument further saying "the cops found" the bullet casings. People trust the reports that police would give, and this demonstrates that she put effort into this argument by going out and digging up records from 1999.

Sarah Knoenig gives the perspective that even though Mr. S publicly urinated, he would still want privacy. So he may have walked far out into the woods to find a spot that isn't all that far if you are looking for privacy.

This subtly tells us not to focus all attention towards Mr. S and to remember he is still just a possibility.

Mr. S is very suspicious since drinking before driving and then going to work as a teacher is frowned upon if not illegal. Also public urination is a crime which can be labeled as a sexual offense. to make matters worse, he discovered Hae's body. Even though this looks very bad, his brutal honesty points towards the idea that he is not the killer because he would likely not incriminate himself further had he been guilty of the murder.