This determines if I graduate with straight A's
The following transcript comes from the monumental 1966 case of Miranda vs. the State of Arizona. The result of this case required police officers to inform anyone being arrested of his or her rights to an attorney. Read the statement and then answer the question that follows:

Now, may I just state what the thrust of our position is, very briefly, before indicating likewise its limits and why we are taking this position? Our contention is that insofar as these cases present a constitutional claim that a valid confession cannot be taken unless counsel is present or has been waived, that that claim in constitutional terms in the constitutional dimension is not sound. In other words, Justice Black's question we would answer in the negative. The Fifth Amendment cannot, and should not, be read as requiring counsel to be present at the time the confession is taken. I will come to my reasons for that very presently. […]

In the Miranda case that's just been argued, there is obviously division of opinion about the characteristics of the defendant about whether the warning which Mr. Justice Fortas' questions were directed to was given at a meaningful stage—what the significance of that warning is, in legal terms. […]

Secondly, may I make it quite clear that we are not saying that new rules about requiring counsel to be present when an investigation is taken—when an interrogation is made or a confes¬sion taken—we are not saying that such rules are necessarily unwise, without merit. We say that these are not matters of constitutional dimension. But we do not say that they might not be very wise rules to adopt. In fact, we are saying that this whole problem of the assistance of counsel at the pre-arraignment stage can, we think, be more appropriately and perhaps better dealt with in the legislative dimension and in the area of judicial policy, rather than on purely constitutional terms.

In one paragraph of five to eight sentences, evaluate whether the statement is effective in terms of logos. Use evidence from the statement to support your answer. Use proper spelling and grammar.

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)

word count 168

serve the people! ,” smoothly translated by julia lovell, offers an initial sample of yan lianke’s writing to an english-speaking audience. a bluntly drawn, mildly erotic fable, it teases mao zedong by poking fun at a true believer who obeys the chairman’s precepts too literally. to a western sensibility, the broad strokes of yan lianke’s humor would seem to pose little risk of inciting rebellion, whether of the flesh or of the body politic. but then, part of the book’s attraction is that it doesn’t have a western sensibility. it lets the reader see — or rather, intuit — what jokes chinese officials don’t consider funny, and how very little it takes for a writer to be branded an incendiary in 21st-century china, more than three decades after the death of mao, a decade after the death of deng xiaoping and seven years since china entered the world trade organization, a move that would seem to signal a willingness (however wary) to mingle with the rest of the world.