In the highly controversial vandalism case of Michael Fay, the actions taken place as “punishments” against Michael sparked two major articles. “Time to Assert American Values”, which can be viewed in the New York Times, and “Rough Justice” written by Alejandro Reyes, argue how this American teen’s crime should have been dealt. These two text dive into the harsh acts of Singapore, viewed via America, and how different governments responded to this case. After analysing this text, the reader realizes that the article Rough Justice, by Alejandro Reyes is the most factual based and the most understandable to the reader in understanding the incident. After reading both accounts, “Rough Justice” is the most efficient in the author's case of what Michael Fay …show more content…
In both accounts, the authors jointly dove into the opposing viewers' opinions towards the topic, but the most potent argument of factual backing up was with Alejandro Reyes. In “Time to Assert American Values”, the author mainly supports his claim that caning- the physical act towards the accused of being struck several times with a cane- is morally wrong (an opinion) and uses the majority of his “backing up” with pathos. Unlike contradicting the claim, Reyes stated the reasoning as to why this punishment happened with credible facts and reasoning to aid the understanding of the entirety of the case. Not only did “Rough Justice” use factual evidence, it also incorporated both sides of the case and wasn’t biased. In the story “Time to Assert American Values”, the article states, “So, the argument goes, when Americans express outrage over a punishment that causes permanent scarring- in this case, caning- they are committing an act of cultural arrogance, assuming that American values are