Many critics believe the competency tests for death row inmates have low standards and are in dying need for improvement. While John H. Blume and C. Lee Harrington’s arguments about the tests arrive at the same end, Harrington’s rhetorical techniques were dead wrong. Considering Harrington interviewed 20 high profile defense lawyers for data to support her claim that the Supreme Court needs to heighten the standard of competency for death row inmates wishing to waive their appeals, it may seem that Harrington’s rhetorical approach is more effective than John H. Blume’s. However, if we take note of the informal formatting of the quotes in Harrington’s scientific formatted article and her rhetorical strategy to only have text, it is evident that Harrington’s argument may not be as persuasive as a first glance may suggest. In comparison, John H. Blume’s argument: the Supreme Court ‘s competency test required for death row inmates to waive their appeals fails to directly assess if they are motivated by getting help in their suicide, is more effective than C. Lee Harrington’s argument. …show more content…
While explaining the controversy about Euthanasia, Harrington says, “As scholars note, advances in medical technology that can prolong life almost inevitably, the aging of the American population…”(1118). This part of the report could have been shortened or even taken out, because it makes a small connection back to her closing sentence, “Today almost 70 percent of Americans support some form of assisted death”(1118). With the facts having little relevance to her main argument, the reader has little understanding of what Harrington is trying to