Letter Analysis

Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of
Chemical Weapon Use in Syria

In August 2013, Syria used chemical weapons against its own citizens, shocking the world and perpetuating a vicious civil war. Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the State Department in videotaped remarks, accusing the Syrian government of “indiscriminate slaughter of civilians” and of cynical efforts to cover up its responsibility for a “cowardly crime.”

Mr. Kerry’s remarks at the State Department reinforced the administration’s toughening stance on the Syria conflict, which was at that time in its third year, and indicated that the White House was moving closer to a military response in consultation with America’s allies.

Six years later, the fighting goes on.

Kerry’s Address

Several readers wrote Letters to the Editors in response to the story of April 26, 2013, a few of which appear below.

In-Class Task

  • Review the pertinence and effectiveness of TWO letters
    • I will assign you one letter
    • Choose another for yourself
  • Identify the most effective claims and arguments
  • Evaluate the quality of the thinking and the writing
  • Declare why you think the letter was published from hundreds of candidates
  • Record your evaluation as a Reply to this page
  • Time limit: 20 minutes

 


LETTER 1

To the Editor:
Re “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use” (front page, Aug. 27):
There are compelling reasons to intervene in Syria’s civil war. But the use of chemical weapons in last week’s attack near Damascus is not one of them.

If, as Secretary of State John Kerry declared, the killing of reportedly hundreds of people with toxic gas should “shock the conscience of the world,” why should attacks using plain old bullets and bombs — which have killed more than 100,000 Syrians so far — be less troubling?

Apparently, it is not the political fundamentals of the conflict but rather the spectacular specter of chemical weapons that may finally be rousing the West to action. This augurs poorly for what is to come. Shocked consciences tend to blind us to consequences.

STEPHEN WERTHEIM
New York


LETTER 2

To the Editor:
Re “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use” (front page, Aug. 27):

The singular policy option available to President Obama is to interdict further chemical weapon attacks upon Syrians by force of arms. Mr. Obama’s admonitory “red line” demarcation has evidently been transgressed.

The television footage of the dead and the dying compels action, not vacuous verbiage, not deliberative studies and not endless United Nations inquiries.

ROGER BRANDWEIN
Scarsdale, N.Y.


LETTER 3

To the Editor:

Re “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use” (front page, Aug. 27):

Before the United States dives into another intractable intervention, we should take a small but significant step into the shark-infested Syrian waters with a major humanitarian action:

We should develop regular and reliable contact with the field hospitals and provide large amounts of high-quality medical supplies to them and to the victims, both of the chemical attacks and the bombings, through airdrops into carefully pinpointed areas.

We should also fly in helicopters to airlift the most life-threatened victims to either a hospital ship or to the closest hospitals in countries bordering Syria. Ambulances should also be stationed at the Israeli, Lebanese and Turkish borders to transport the seriously wounded to the closest hospitals in these countries. Priority in these evacuations should be given to children.

These actions would not only save lives and demonstrate America’s humanitarian concerns and its recognition of the urgent need to address them, but also serve to “test the waters” to determine if military intervention is necessary, possible and conducive to success.

AVIVA CANTOR
New York


LETTER 4

To the Editor:

Re “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use” (front page, Aug. 27):

The coming American intervention in Syria telegraphed by Secretary of State John Kerry should not be in support of one faction or another. Rather, the United States’ objective should be to secure and or destroy President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons.

Only such a clear and limited goal would command the support of the American people.

VICTOR ZONANA
New York


LETTER 5

To the Editor:

Re “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use” (front page, Aug. 27):

This is not, nor should it be, the sole responsibility of the United States. In this age of globalization and porous economic and social borders, the time has come for the United Nations to seriously review its charter and contrive to allow its “peacekeeping forces” to act as first responders in a real and meaningful way.

What happens in one country now affects not only that country and neighboring states, and the reverberations are felt worldwide. It’s all very well drawing a line in the sand, but if there is no coherent response on an international level and no plan in place to deliver immediate consequences, these events will continue.

The United Nations was created to find ways of avoiding and preventing situations like this. Today, it behaves more like the United States Congress, and the fact that it chooses to remain impotent in the face of very real need is a damning comment on an organization that could be doing so much more.

SUSAN A. McGREGOR
North Kingstown, R.I.


LETTER 6

To the Editor:

Re “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use” (front page, Aug. 27):

Illegal and immoral as the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war may be, there is not universal agreement as to whether their use should be an automatic trigger to an outside military response. Not only are our old cold-war adversaries on the other side of the issue, but there are also reasonable voices within our own country calling for restraint.

The president must not only wrestle with those issues but also with where our most important interests lie and how best to achieve them.

Analogies to other moments in history may hold some universal truths, but the strife in Syria has its differences as well. As strong as the public statements may grow, the president should be patient in his examination of all available options before deciding that a military response is called for here.

Life-or-death decisions are not easy for any president.

BRUCE NEUMAN
Sag Harbor, N.Y.


 

33 Responses to Letter Analysis

  1. comp0327 says:

    Number 5: Susan A. McGregor argues in her response that the United States should not be the only working force against Syria. Instead, she argues, the United Nations needs to review the situation and take action. This is a valid argument that she supports by stating, “What happens in one country now affects not only that country and neighboring states, and the reverberations are felt worldwide.” Not just that, but these events will continue to occur, “if there is no coherent response on an international level and no plan in place to deliver immediate consequences.” McGregor concludes her argument by stating the purpose of the United Nations, which is to fight global peril. From these observations, it is concluded that her article must have been published because of her argument that the whole world should be working to fight conflicts such as Syria’s, rather than one nation. This argument made her letter to the editor stronger.
    Number 6: Bruce Neuman argues in his letter to the editor that the president of the United States must decide where the country’s best interests lie before taking action in response to a conflict. He claims that the president, “should be patient in his examination of all available options before deciding that a military response is called for here.” Neuman concludes his argument that situations such as Syria’s conflict are never easy for a president to sort out, but they must be sorted. The conclusion of his argument states something obvious: Nobody wants to deal with conflict but we must. Neuman’s response must have been published for this reason. Rather than just stating his argument, Neuman appeals to something relatable.

    Like

  2. hershey515 says:

    Letter 4 was a very brief and clear argument. The writer talked about how the U.S should destroy President Assad’s chemical weapon and fight for a goal. This would be effective because want to see a common goal to be achieved. I think this was added because many people want to see the common goal solved in a safe manner.
    Letter 2 was really short but effective argument. The author mainly focuses on criticizing the president. The way the author counterargued the main purpose of the article bring s attention to the reader because of the opposition.

    Like

  3. Letter 6’s most effective claim was its reference to history, when America’s quick decision making has failed. This claim gives good reason as to why America should not make any rash decisions upon the situation right away. The writer also lets the reader know that other Americans are reasonably “calling for restraint.” However, the writer never mentions who these “reasonable voices” are. I believe this letter was published because it effectively criticizes America’s usual response of quick decision making.

    Letter 3
    Letter 3’s most effective claim was their suggestion to the U.S. to take “major humanitarian action.” This claim is the basis to the rest of their argument. The writer goes on to make several suggestions as to how the government can get involved without sending in military forces. The writer makes another persuasive claim, describing his motions as serving to “test the waters” before America could intervene. I believe this article was chosen because it not only writes about what the government should not do, but also gives suggestions as to what America should do that could save lives before diving head first into any conflict.

    Like

  4. LETTER 3: The author effectively proposes ideas to attempting to shut down the situation in Syria, I believe this was published because they begin the letter by calling out the us basically in its involvement in various foreign affairs that some would say the US does not need to be involved in. this creates an almost critical tone, and throughout the letter suggests ideas that shows the writer is thinking about how the image of america will portrayed, and insists that the US not jump in with guns a blaze but rather send in humanitarian help to scope out whether there is an ongoing pertinent threat occurring. Although the argument compelling and clever, the actual syntax and diction was not as elevated as it should have been. I felt there could have been more sentence variation in the letter to make the reader more interested and not like we were just reading a to do list.
    LETTER 2: The author of this letter uses concise writing to grab the readers attention right from the start. He effectively calls to action the president and insists that frivolous United Nations meetings are not going to do the job. He also is the article who insists that a show of force would be the best route. His elevated diction gives a sense of sophistication. I believe this letter was posted because it does not look like the rest of the articles in the sense that it will grab readers attention and lead them with a different major claim compared to the rest of the articles.

    Like

  5. ahntkd99 says:

    Letter 1
    The author saying that there was attack near Damascus by chemical weapon. The author believe that chemical weapon is not good as war. I believe that letter published among with hundreds of people because most of people are agree with author.

    Letter 3
    The author saying that United states should develop regular and reliable contact with the field hospitals and provide large amounts of high-quality medical supplies to them and to the victims in
    Syria. both of the chemical attacks and the bombings, through airdrops into carefully pinpointed areas. Priority in these evacuations should be given to children. I totally agree with author because a lot of people get hurts from chemical attacks and the bombings even there not involve to the war. And I also believe that this letter over all others was published because author wanted to advise the country that helping them out to conclusions quickly and sending our supply to them to solve the problem, could be doing more harm than good.

    Like

  6. ajuuy7 says:

    Letter 2 was very short but intriguing to readers. The author is saying that Obama’s boundary has been overstepped and demands action instead of sitting back and being satisfied after the speech. The author of this letter is not fond with the way this situation is being handled and thinks that more needs to be done. I believe this letter was published because it will be relatable to other readers who wish for something to change.
    Letter 3 has a lot of ideas for the future. The author makes numerous claims on what the United States can do to help without using military intervention right away. The author’s suggestions are very smart and it would be beneficial to the country. I think this letter was published because it suggests ideas for the readers to get behind and stand up for.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. tenere84 says:

    The author of Letter 1 adequately supports the argument that lethal chemical weapon use is no more immoral or prevalent than other killing methods (guns, bombs, etc.) with statistics and appeals to logic. However, he fails to back up his claim that chemical weapon use by the Syrian government against its citizens is not a compelling reason for the West to intervene. Furthermore, the letter is not clear on what consequences may arise from having a “shocked conscience” in this context.The letter also lacks proper LTE structure. When taking the ten essential components of a successful LTE into consideration, the chances that this letter will get published are slim; the author does not clearly present any “truth” or bottom line about the situation, offers no solution of his own, uses no compelling rhetoric to incite action, and includes no call to action.

    Letter 3 offers an abundance of solutions to the problem but does not offer any differing opinion or objection. Such a factor will certainly sting and leave the letter buried among the other not-so-successful LTEs. It has a lot to say but leaves little for discussion.

    Like

  8. Letter 3: In Letter 3, the author showcases many strong arguments and claims. One claim is that we can supply Syrian ground hospitals with supplies without putting boots to the ground by carefully pinpointing areas to make airdrops. Also, that Ambulances can be stationed in and around boarding countries for transporting the seriously wounded to the closest hospitals in these countries. The overarching claim in this letter is that we can avoid military involvement by taking action is said ways and “test the waters,” before making any other executive decisions. I think the quality of the writing is good, could be condensed and refined to get the same points and ideas across.

    Letter 4: In Letter 4, the author makes two claims with limited words. The major claim is that America’s only goal in the matter should be to confiscate or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. The second claim is short and clear just like the letter itself and says that such a goal would command the support of the American people. The quality of the writing is short and concise and drives the objective of the author’s letter home.

    Like

  9. lucbe219 says:

    In reply to Letter 6:
    The letter had a very meaningful claim of, “Illegal and immoral as the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war may be, there is not universal agreement as to whether their use should be an automatic trigger to an outside military response.” Through this response, they want to see other options of shutting down this issue rather than fighting it with our military. I believe that this letter over all others was published because of the fact that it has the opinion of not responding with more acts of violence. An additional reason as to why this letter may have been published is because the author wanted to advise the country that jumping to conclusions quickly and sending our military in to solve the problem, could be doing more harm than good.

    In reply to Letter 1:
    There was a solid argument made by the author claiming, “..The use of chemical weapons in last week’s attack near Damascus is not one of them [reasons to intervene].” The letter quickly gets to the point that the author believes that chemical warfare is not a good idea. I assume that the letter was published among all others because it expresses clearly and immediately the opinion of the author also being respectful to those who may disagree

    Like

  10. voxpopuli75 says:

    Letter 5: The main argument of this letter is that the US should not act alone against Syria and that the UN should step up and take more action. The most effective claim in this letter was the author’s claim that “The United Nations was created to find ways of avoiding and preventing situations like this.” This claim was effective because it sums up most of the main argument of the letter in one sentence. Overall this quality of this letter is good because the author makes their point of view clear from the beginning and supports their argument throughout the letter.

    Letter 4:
    Letter 4’s main argument is that the US should only seek to destroy President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons and not get involved in any other way. Although this letter is brief and lacks any support it does get its main argument across rather effectively. This letter likely got published due to it taking a firm and clear stance on the issue right out of the gate.

    Like

  11. mpsj13 says:

    Letter 3: The letter to the editor is well written and holds the clear position that the United States should approach the situation in Syria with caution. The author states that “we should take a small but significant step into the shark-infested Syrian waters with a major humanitarian action.” She argues for an attempt to assist through air dropping medical supplies and having countries bordering Syria ready to assist. I feel that this letter was published because it provides an alternative solution to the predicament in Syria. The author gives a well thought out explanation as to why the United States should as she says, “Test the waters,” and see if it is possible or conductive to send military to Syria.
    Letter 1: The letter to the editor presents the claim that the chemical attacks used in Syria are no more of a reason to interfere than the attacks that have been present in the past effectively. The author argues that “it is not the political fundamentals of the conflict but rather the spectacular specter of chemical weapons that may finally be rousing the West to action.” The author argues that the United States only feels compelled to act because Syrians are being killed through more extreme methods. I feel that this letter was published due to its blunt claims against the United States decisions regarding interference in Syria.

    Like

  12. LETTER 6
    Letter 6 used a bit of history to get the reader to think twice about wanting to stop Syria. He states that “… our old cold-war adversaries on the other side of the issue…” and so by sending troops in this gets the reader to start thinking about what other countries would do. This was added in to get people to think about maybe not joing the fight and, to sit bck and see what other countries do.
    LETTER 4
    Letter 4 was very clear and brief. The author went to say that instead of supporting a side we fight for a goal. This was effective as most people just want to see a goal complete. Joining sides would mean we also have to do what that side wants as well rather then just the common goal. I believe this was added in for the reason that most Americans want to get a job like this done the fastest and safest way possible.

    Like

  13. Jayv23 says:

    Reply to letter number 1: This was written well by using the essential components and getting his point across in reply to the original. His argument about fighting Syria with ammunition and more violence isn’t the best idea when dealing with chemical weapons. This letter was expanded with their own opinion and opened up the main point.
    Reply to letter number 4: The writer got straight to the point about his argument and didn’t apply wasteful sentences. The author put good thought into this writing because they suggest a solution about the problem in the letter.

    Like

  14. yankeefan25 says:

    Letter 4
    Letter four suggests that the United States should not not be taking sides of a faction and instead just destroy the chemical weapons. This is the only real claim that they make. They do not have a justification or credentials. Sometimes short and sweet is the best way to go, but in this case it is too short. They should add backing to their point and maybe even some proof. Overall this letter is on the weaker side and could use some work incorporating the ten components to a successful letter to the editor.
    Letter 1
    Letter one makes a great claim at the start of their letter. It is a question that makes the reader take a step back and really think about the situation at hand. It takes a strong stand and supports it very well. This is the perfect example of short and sweet. Again and again in the letter the author draws out many points that become ever so clear to the reader. They then go on to challenge the immediate response to the action and say that they become blind to their own consequences.

    Like

  15. Valcom says:

    Number 6 – Letter to the editor author Bruce Neuman claims that the use of chemical weapons is illegal and there really is no moral reasoning behind the move but the use and movement of military personnel directly afterwards is not the right thing to do. This letter was published in my eyes because it puts the stance that he is not picking sides but stating the facts that not everyone can agree on the same thing.

    Number 1 – The author claims that bullets and bombs are nearly equal to the use of the chemical bombs.

    Like

  16. bmdpiano says:

    Letter 2:
    Though letter 2 is short, it gets the author’s point across. They state their opinion of the situation being that words will not do anything to help this situation. The word choice makes it clear that there is a dispute. It calls out faults in the U.S’s decision in dealing with Syria. The letter was chosen from many as it creates a conversation about Kerry’s statement. Many may agree with what Kerry said, but for those who were on the fence, this letter gives a voice to the other side of the argument.

    Letter 4:
    This letter is also short, but the author states their point in a clear and concise way. They state that there should be more action taken than choosing sides. The claims aren’t so effective as there is no evidence or proof that destroying the weapons first hand would be the best way of handling the situation. This makes it less convincing. The letter was chosen out of many because it states a bold opinion from the beginning and opens up the discussion. Maybe the claim is possible, but there would be a response to whether or not it is.

    Like

  17. jackso23 says:

    Letter 6:
    – The most effective claim/argument given was that the rest of the world (more importantly the United States) has it’s own issues to worry about. Going into another country to help without fixing our own problems will seem hypocritical. The argument itself was not very effective nor did it have any type of “backing”, it was more of a statement than a claim. This letter was likely published simply to contrast the situation, this is likely a person who doesn’t want the United States to have their hand in any more foreign issues.

    Letter 3:
    – The most effective argument was that the United States should help but not too much. Aid should be given via the United States but in bordering countries as well. Hospitals and ambulances in those bordering countries should be on alert and ready for any victim of the crisis that needs immediate and safe help with priority given to children. This effectively draws the audience and strikes a nerve when mentioning a child in need of help and also demonstrates the United State’s humanitarian value. This letter was likely published because it posed a more strategic and thoughtful response to the issue to better the safety of everyone without having the United States too involved which people seemingly didn’t want.

    Like

  18. roses0102 says:

    LETTER 1: The most effective argument is saying that chemical weapons are not a good enough reason to intervene with Syria. Even though I personally don’t agree with this statement, the authors main point is clear and concise. The author also includes a quote from the Secretary of State, to further validate his point. The reason I believe this was published was to get a different point of view on the sensitive topic.
    LETTER 3: The most effective argument in this letter is about the importance of medical staff and equipment when chemical weapons are being used on people. The authors point is clear and states that people should have the right to seek medical attention if needed and that kids should be prioritized first. Also that bordering countries hospitals should be ready to support critically injured patients from Syria. The reason this was published was probably to bring attention to the lack of hospitals and medical staff in Syria.

    Like

  19. Letter 2
    In letter 2, the author gives a clear topic overview and represents the issue in a small paragraph. He talks about how president Obama needs to take initiative and that he wasn’t doing anything about the issue. It represents an argument which as a reader you want to see. He ends with the last sentence being a call to action, which is stating that something needs to be changed and fixed for this situation.

    Letter 4
    Right off the bat, in letter 4, the author states their own opinion on the argument. In three detailed sentences the author gets a clear point across and what they are presenting. He/she specifically says that America needs to take initiative and destroy all the weapons under the Syrian President.

    Like

  20. Letter 4:
    The coming American intervention in Syria telegraphed by Secretary of State John Kerry should not be in support of one faction or another. Rather, the United States’ objective should be to secure and or destroy President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons.

    Only such a clear and limited goal would command the support of the American people.

    This letter was published in the newspaper because the letter was written by a reputable reporter giving his opinion. This reporter has an association with bill clinton; therefore, what he says is reputable. in this letter to the editor, this author simply states his opinion as being that “we should stop this non sense since we as a nation have the power to stop it”. There is not much else the author is stating besides that.

    Like

  21. kraemercali says:

    letter 5: The author jumps right into the idea that the United Nations should act as a peacekeeper and use its powers to take action in this case of chemical weaponry in Syria. The United Nations was created to prevent such problems and conflict within its own power. She claims that the U.N. is acting more like the United States Congress in remaining neutral in when problems needing action arise.

    letter 4: This letter is kept short and not so sweet. The author claims the only way to get the support of the American people is to secure or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. He said that having such a simple plan/demand would sway the people to agree with such action.

    Like

  22. Letter 5: This letter is very compelling, as the author makes the clear statement to the United Nations about how they need to take a stand. The author gets straight to her point and doesn’t sugarcoat it. She is taking a stand and calling the United Nations to action, without being too aggressive.
    Letter 4: This letter is very compelling and effective as it cuts straight to the point. The letter was definitely published due to its short but quite opinionated content.

    Like

  23. LETTER 3: Aviva Cantor came up with useful solutions for transporting those who are injured to hospitals and having ambulance stationed at the border. She insists that we should give them medical supplies from airdrops. This letter mostly covered on solutions and having hope to save others and hearten others to help those who are innocent

    LETTER 4: An effective claim in this letter is Victor Zonana suggesting that the U.S. should destroy Syrian nuclear weapons. He stated his solution and was able to create a strong claim. He gives effective solutions and calls for help effectively.

    Like

  24. bestbaker123 says:

    LETTER 6: The most effective claim was “Illegal and immoral as the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war may be, there is not universal agreement as to whether their use should be an automatic trigger to an outside military response.” The letter manages to get a point across in not many sentences. The letter claims that bringing in the military into Syria isn’t what everyone agrees on, and it would just make matters worse. It makes a call for action by asking President Obama to be patient and use rationale with making any further decision. I think this letter was published because it very calmly states an opinion without being aggressive. The letter doesn’t try to berate anyone, it just makes a peaceful suggestion. And at the end of it, the last statement, “Life-or-death decisions are not easy for any president,” really appeals to the ethics and morals of the President. This letter did a good job of making an argument, offering a peaceful “solution” per se to the situation, and it even tries to instill hope in the readers that peace isn’t a lost cause.

    LETTER 2: This letter is very short but it gets a simple point across. The letter wants to say that Obama has crossed a line and action needs to be taken immediately. The quality of writing is pretty good considering how short the letter is and the big words it used to show their frustration. I think the letter got published because it has character and shows mature thinking. Also, it’s another side to hear of the situation which appeals to the readers.

    Like

  25. lelebxby says:

    Letter 1:
    The response by Stephen Wertheim was written extremely well. His argument that fighting Syria with ammunition and more violence isn’t the best decision when dealing with chemical weapons precisely and clearly got his views across to the reader. His letter was clear and straight to the point and used the essential components correctly to further his point.

    Like

  26. athenapup4 says:

    Letter 4 Response
    The most effective claim in this letter would be when the author suggest that instead of just supporting one faction the United States should destroy the nuclear weapons in Syria. The author clearly stated his solution to the problem in very few words. I believe the author put very much time and thought on their writing, especially when it came to suggesting a solution because of the consequences that could occur. I feel this letter was chosen to be published because of the clear and effective solutions given as well as the call for help the author stated at the end.
    Letter 5 Response
    To begin the letter starts off with a very compelling claim. That instead of the United States getting directly involved that this is when the United Nations should take a stand and call for the “peacemaking forces” to address the issue. This is a very strong and powerful suggestion that was said very early on getting right to the point. The author then goes into how this affects not just one country but its neighboring countries along with the world. Giving yet another reason why this is a situation that should be handled by the United Nations. These two claims would be the most effective claims given in the argument which were clearly explained. All making it a very worthy essay to publish.

    Like

  27. Letter 1: In this letter, one difference he makes compared to the rest of the crowd is that he disagrees that chemical weapons are the worst used. It is the author’s opinion that the “plain old bullets and bombs,” are just as bad if not worse than the chemical weapons. The author keep’s his argument short and to the point, and questions the readers if it really is worse to use chemicals. He brings up some facts about the death toll which pulls on our emotions. It is the author’s opinion that something should have been done much before the chemicals were used and that no way of killing humans is humane.

    Like

  28. gcatt310 says:

    Letter 1 does a good job of recognizing the argument that it is replying to while also expanding on to the argument at hand. While replying to the letter the author is also stating their own opinion and widening the main argument.
    Letter 4 is straight to the point and states their opinion immediately. This author would prefer America to intervene to confiscate the chemical weapons. I think this letter was straight to point and did not use wasteful sentences.

    Like

  29. The author of Letter 1 claims that the use of chemical weapons is not a compelling reason to intervene in Syria’s civil war. They also say that “shocked consciences lead to blind consequences. I believe this reply was well put together and gets to the authors point concisely. The letter had to be published by so many candidates because so many people have so many different opinions regarding this subject being that it is a very complex and delicate situation.

    Letter 2 states almost the exact opposite claim as Letter 1. The author states that the only option is the intervene and use chemical weapons as if there is no other choice. The reply was also put together nicely but very brief. I couldn’t really understand the point of view of the author except for the fact that he believes the US should intervene. Again, there are many contradicting opinions, this being one of them, that cause so many different opinion son this touchy subject.

    Like

  30. influenza123 says:

    Letter number 2 is quite short but effective in getting the author’s point across. The letter contains only three sentences, all of which criticize the President’s handling of the situation. This is effective in stirring the debate, and therefore is intriguing to readers. The author believes words aren’t enough to fight this battle and this is expressed in the last sentence which a call-to-action.

    Like

  31. iamsleepy01 says:

    In letter 3, the writer came up with solutions for transporting the injured to hospitals and have ambulances station at the border. The author also said that we should give them medical supplies from airdrops that are specifically pinpointed to drop. This article had hopes for saving thousands of lives and could encourage people to help the innocent Syrians.

    Like

  32. smellycat23 says:

    Replying to Letter 4:
    The most effective claim was that the weapons in Syria should be destroyed and American intervention should not be supported. The letter is short and right to the point. The author, Victor Zonana, has established he disagrees with America’s choice and offers another proposal. This letter was published because the last sentence is very strong. It addresses that the American people would support his clear and limited proposal.

    Replying to Letter 6:
    The author, Bruce Neuman, established that the use of chemical weapons on Syria was immoral and illegal but the choice to use outside military force is not in agreement with the American people. This Letter to the Editor was published because he offers advice to the President by saying he should be patient and then states life or death decisions are not easy for any president which shows some sympathy.

    Like

  33. compclass8 says:

    Letter number 4 review:
    This letter the the editor is poor because it doesn’t have any quotes and barely any information. It gives limited details and no background information. It doesn’t even have an opinion of anything in the writing which is something a good LTE should have.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s