Imagine that after the conclusion of the Mary Barnett mock trial, the public is in an uproar: a large majority of the population disagrees with the guilty verdict you arrived at. Consequently, you are approached by the press for an interview and given an opportunity to explain how you arrived at your verdict. In a short, informal argumentative essay (4 or more pages), defend your verdict in the trial for an audience that disagrees strongly with you.
Your argumentative essay should provide the specific reasoning and supporting evidence that you and the group (during “jury duty”) might have discussed superficially. Your goal is to convince your readers that your point of view on the trial is correct, and that apathy and other points of view are wrong. This is best done with a variety of appeals (logos, ethos, pathos), use of logic models (deductive, inductive, Toulmin), counterargument, and references to evidence from the case to support your points. Remember that the majority of the population disagrees with you; this means that they are your primary audience, so when discussing opposing points of view, be sure to remain fair and objective: don’t alienate your readers.
