Source for Paper B

http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed.htm

"Rights to Reg. Ed."

This article doesn't have a lot of opinionated writing, so I wasn't sure if I should use it, but I think it uses the form it does for a purpose, which I would say is to really push the ethos side of it. What this site says is not supposed to seem like someone's opinion, but just as the way things are, no questions asked. The court cases are an obvious appeal to ethos. You can't get a much more conclusive opinion than that of the courts. But then what's interesting to me is how they list the other rights besides legal, the moral, civil, etc. They're just listed right in line, in short statements, not really making much effort to persuade anybody, which is why I say that they want to make it look like the statements are the final verdict. This is of course not true because not everyone would agree that all children benefit from having the same experiences.

I see an appeal to pathos in the site's use of the Declaration of Independence and at the end the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance. These could also fall under the category of ethos, but I think it has an emotional feel to it because I think in our country the feeling of National pride is strong enough that anytime you refer to our legacy it brings out that sense of pride and loyalty.

The article definitely uses a lot of research to back up its legal rights section, because it uses about 20 court cases. But it seems like they use a lot of them to make up for the fact that none of them really make the direct point they want. They're searching to get a sufficient amount of research, but none of the cases come right out and say "kids should never be kept out of regular classrooms", so they just use a ton of them to try to make it sufficient by quantity rather than quality.

I think a point on the accuracy of the research has to be made that they only give you a tiny part of the ruling on each court case. Obviously it would be superfluous to put much more in, but when they only include so little, you have to wonder what the rest of the ruling on that case was, and whether that case really supports their argument when you look at it more in-depth.

I think the article is fairly effective, though I'd say if it included more explanation with the court cases, explaining what each of them has to do with inclusion, that it would've been more effective.