Sands vs. Chicago Tribune After reading both articles "What 's Wrong with the DREAM Act" by Peggy Sands and the "Pass the DREAM Act" by the Chicago Tribune. Sands ' article was better and more persuasive. It argued more effectively and it pinpoints the flaws within the law; it has better organization, and provides ways to improve the Dream Act better than the Chicago Tribune article. Sanders article is more affective and makes the reader understand. It is easy to follow and tells how the Dream act can be made better to work for everyone. Sands provide clear and valid imperfections in the DREAM Act. She indicates that the dream act discriminates against children of legal immigrants. Illegal children get more benefits and opportunities
…show more content…
It failed to direct its attention or focus to convince the naysayers by counter arguing their points. It did a good job at addressing the benefits of the DREAM Act, but it didn 't do anything to convince me that the weak points within the act isn 't an issue that is worthy of being addressed or fixed.
The structure of the article is not bad, but it kept reader guessing about what they would be reading about next instead of informing them directly. The Chicago Tribune does nothing that helps fix the imperfections of the act, so its argument is not truly an argument because of its lack of counterargument. It gives how the Illegal immigrants can benefit the Dream act
In conclusion, Peggy Sands article “What’s Wrong with the DREAM Act” is more effectively argued for than Chicago Tribune’s “Pass the DREAM Act” because it explains the flaws within the act clearly, has a structured and coherent organized paper, and it effectively counter argues and actually provides ways that the DREAM Act could be fixed; so that the law could be less problematic whereas the Chicago Tribune lacks or does not have anything of those proponents that would convince the reader that the article was better argued for regarding the DREAM
It failed to direct its attention or focus to convince the naysayers by counter arguing their points. It did a good job at addressing the benefits of the DREAM Act, but it didn 't do anything to convince me that the weak points within the act isn 't an issue that is worthy of being addressed or fixed.
The structure of the article is not bad, but it kept reader guessing about what they would be reading about next instead of informing them directly. The Chicago Tribune does nothing that helps fix the imperfections of the act, so its argument is not truly an argument because of its lack of counterargument. It gives how the Illegal immigrants can benefit the Dream act
In conclusion, Peggy Sands article “What’s Wrong with the DREAM Act” is more effectively argued for than Chicago Tribune’s “Pass the DREAM Act” because it explains the flaws within the act clearly, has a structured and coherent organized paper, and it effectively counter argues and actually provides ways that the DREAM Act could be fixed; so that the law could be less problematic whereas the Chicago Tribune lacks or does not have anything of those proponents that would convince the reader that the article was better argued for regarding the DREAM