After reading the first line of the article it is hard to tell whether the writer cited his work correctly or not. If the writer put his citation there himself then it seems like he took the easy route instead of incorporating it into his response. Otherwise the editors of the paper may have placed it in for him which, according to the given components is forgetting the first step making his argument seem weak from the start. He disagrees with how him and people similar in conditions are being treated by the president and the system itself. The author explains that he has to wait in fear each week to know if he will even be able to provide for his children. He strongly disagrees with how many hours he puts in a week just for them to get cut along with the numbers on their paychecks. The emotion of this paragraph plays a big role in how well he used this component of writing. One impressive detail that is recalled in the letter is about the Labor Department sending weekly reports. This adds to the author’s credibility showing he has knowledge on this topic and that he is worth listening to. Since he is pulling facts into his letter it also is more persuasive to readers. Joseph Henderson, the author of this edition’s Letter to the Editor identifies his credentials by relating it to the public. He states that he works in a hotel and is a low-wage worker like many others. People of the town are more likely to read what he has to say because they themselves might empathize or know someone who would. The argument in the letter is that these people do not deserve to get their money cut because of their dangerous jobs. He blames the concept of “just in time scheduling” and claims that businesses are getting money handed to them. The letter refers to the support component in saying that no one cares about the hardworking and underpaid citizens and all the money is going to people who don’t need it. It is a known thing that the rich get richer and adding that element made readers who agree with that statement begin to pay more attention. The president boasts about these numbers but in reality they are nothing to be proud of. Henderson explains that job creation is not doing any good to the communities lives like it should be. Adding in that he wants every man to succeed is also very compelling.Henderson proposes that if anyone gets a chance to talk to the president they must ask him three questions all relating to the way low-waged workers are treated. Asking a citizen to stand up to the president is powerful and captivating. He grabs the attention of readers when bringing up what all of this is doing to people who are just trying to support their families. He explains that sometimes he doesn’t even know if he’ll be able to make it to church or not. He is adding readers from all categories to comprehend his side of the story and to try to make change in the way things are happening. After asking the president these questions to fight for the rights of those who are finding cuts to their paychecks each week, Henderson asks for someone to stand up to the president and tell him that his strategies do not benefit all workers like he might think they do. He uses the word “we” in saying “We all can do better than this,” to feel inclusive to all readers. All in all, I would say the author of this letter deserved to be in the newspaper for his execution of the ten components. He also deserves to be treated fairly by the president and not have any more paycheck cuts.