I classify this essay as an argument because the author is trying to bring to light different sides of the Shepard case. The author speaks about the context in which Henderson and McKinney were raised as well as Shepard’s, the media’s take on the story, the court’s point-of-view, etc. Ultimately, the author is trying to argue that there is more than just one cause to the Shepard case and that some of the causes presented now aren’t taking many other factors into consideration. It seems that the author is addressing an over-simplification of the case and also addressing stances or arguments that seem to be clouded by culture or different beliefs.

This article helps clarify our discussion about what it means to argue by showing that there doesn’t have to be a clear-cut answer to be drawn out from an article.  I see that the main purpose of articles such as these should be to stimulate thought for the reader and to challenge established notions.

I think the writer would say that the purpose of her article is to challenge the reasons for McKinney’s and Henderson’s assault on Shepard. I believe she is trying to complicate the “standard” frame of thought that surrounds this case.

I believe this a good example of a good writer because the analysis that was conducted was very deep in terms of detail and the scope to which she sought information. The presentation that was presented was also clear and easy to understand but it provoked thought at the same time.