Mencken and Anna Quindley use rhetorical devices to convince readers to take a side on the controversial issue of capital punishment. These two essays demonstrate how authors use ambiguity, various types of evidence, and in many cases make errors of generalization or classification commonly known as "informal fallacies." In Mencken's case, since he deconstructs arguments against his own proposals, critical reading becomes an analysis of an analysis, which this particularly sophisticated author would have appreciated given a sardonic tone that leaves the reader guessing whether he is really for or against. Quindley too uses techniques of reversal and qualification to build ethos with her reader, and though both essayists seemingly take positions opposing the choice they advocate, the result are nuanced, subtle arguments that force the reader to look deeper than the surface. Both authors take a line that capital punishment provides transformative release -- katharsis, as Mencken sardonically attributes to "the aforesaid Aristotle" (PAGEREF); likewise both essayists propose that deterrence is not the real intent of the death sentence, Mencken by pointing out a generalization fallacy where one aspect or attribute is mistaken as essential (PAGE), and Quindley by committing such generalizations herself. This is revealed any time the author either makes claims based on so called common sense, or uses figurative language to encourage the reader to identify with her as a person, rather than defend assertions on inherent merit. These instances reveal the author has not found more compelling evidence which she would employ had she set out to win her points in earnest.

Quindley tries to build this ethos from the very start, attempting to shock the reader with the catchy assertion that she and a notorious serial killer "go back a long way" (PAGE). This grabby opening allows her to imply that since she has been a crime reporter, then obviously she is thus an authority criminal behavior (PAGE). She relates endearing images of the victims, and models the association her readers are encouraged to adopt, by revealing how fascinated she became with these intimate details. Since her victims were regular people and she associates with these characteristics,...

If the reader sympathizes with the victims, and then so does the author, the reader thus should sympathize with the author as well and open themselves to her opinion on the titillating but macabre subject of capital punishment. If the author is as storied a writer and student of human motivation as she implies, such deliberate manipulation of the readers' emotion actually encourages suspicion instead of bonding on part of a critical reader.
This figurative language continues when she personifies the death penalty as someone her example would presumably get along with but with whom she would have nothing to do (PAGE) even though she used to be -- oh yes, even this hard-bitten crime writer -- a "liberal" back in the sixties, although she knows better now after so many years in the seedy criminal alleyways of New York City (PAGE). These appeals to emotion and authority continue on throughout the essay, taking up as much discussion as the substantive merits or drawbacks of capital punishment. The reasoning goes something like 'this author is an authority and a mother who wants to protect her children. I want to protect my children too, and since I haven't been around enough murderers to make my own judgment, I wouldn't want my daughters to be clubbed to death and so I'm just going to take her word for it.' Finally, she models a reliance on her "gut" rather than rational argument all while questioning her own reasoning for the reader, so the audience can rest assured the author has considered and ruled out opposing arguments and "an emotional response" (PAGE), which she then tries to evoke with images of the savagery that makes capital punishment unfortunately necessary even though she, and it is implied all reasonable adults of goodwill like her, find that alternative unpalatable. Every one of her examples implies that since this victim or that relative feels a certain…