Question

Essay #1: The Trial of Mary Barnett

Imagine that after the conclusion of the Mary Barnett trial, the public is in an uproar: a large majority of the population disagrees with the verdict you arrived at. Consequently, you are approached by the press for an interview and given an opportunity to explain how you arrived at your verdict. In a short, informal argumentative essay, defend your verdict in the trial to an audience that disagrees strongly with you.


Your argumentative essay should be done individually and provide the specific reasoning and supporting evidence that your group (during "jury duty") might have discussed only superficially. Your goal is to convince your readers that your point of view on the trial is correct and that apathy and other points of view are wrong. This is best done with a variety of appeals (logos, ethos, pathos), use of logic models (deductive, inductive, Toulmin), counterargument, and references to evidence from the case to support your points. Remember that the majority of the population disagrees with you; this means that they are your primary audience, so when discussing opposing points of view, be sure to remain fair and objective: don't alienate your readers.




Please i need this key features:


1. An introduction that appeals to your reader and clearly but briefly describes the trial, provides any necessary background information, and identifies any biases you might have. This section should be no more than a page long.


2. A thesis statement that presents your overall claim about the trial (this will likely be the last sentence of your introduction).


3. A description of the criteria (reasons / beliefs) that you are using as the basis of your verdict. Be sure to explain or defend your criteria if necessary.


4. A clear explanation for how you arrived at your verdict.


5. Adequate, specific evidence from the trial, or your own deliberation to support your verdict. This can include a detailed description, facts, examples, testimony, or statistics.


6. A consideration and rebuttal of at least one alternative view - this will make your evaluation more balanced.


7. Appropriate organization and paragraphing, including the use of clear topic sentences. The paragraphs should be well-developed, in a logical order, and use transitions to show links between ideas.


8. A conclusion that provides closure to the essay and considers the implications of the argument.

Answer 1

Introduction:

The Mary Barnett trial has generated significant controversy, and I understand that many members of the public disagree with the verdict that we reached as the jury. However, I believe that our verdict was the right one based on the evidence presented to us during the trial. In this essay, I will explain how we arrived at our verdict, the criteria that we used to make our decision, and the evidence that supported our decision.

Thesis Statement:

After careful consideration of the evidence presented during the trial, I believe that Mary Barnett is guilty of the crime she was charged with.

Criteria:

As the jury, we were tasked with evaluating the evidence presented during the trial and determining whether it was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary Barnett committed the crime. We were instructed to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of evidence, and the consistency of testimony.

Explanation of Verdict:

After reviewing all of the evidence presented in the trial, we determined that the prosecution had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was ample evidence linking Mary Barnett to the crime scene, including DNA evidence, witness testimony, and physical evidence. Furthermore, the defense was unable to provide a convincing alternative explanation for Mary Barnett's presence at the scene of the crime.

Evidence:

The prosecution presented DNA evidence that placed Mary Barnett at the scene of the crime, along with witness testimony from neighbors who saw her entering and leaving the building on the night of the crime. Physical evidence, including fibers from Mary Barnett's clothing, were found at the scene of the crime. The defense attempted to argue that the DNA evidence was contaminated and that the fibers could have been transferred to the crime scene in a variety of ways. However, we found their arguments to be unconvincing and not supported by the evidence.

Alternative View:

I understand that some members of the public may believe that Mary Barnett is innocent, and that the evidence presented during the trial was not sufficient to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I would argue that the evidence was clear and convincing, and that the defense's arguments did not provide a credible alternative explanation for the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I believe that the verdict reached by the jury in the Mary Barnett trial was the correct one based on the evidence presented during the trial. While I understand that some members of the public may disagree with our decision, I hope that my explanation of the criteria we used to make our decision and the evidence that supported our verdict has provided a clearer understanding of why we reached the decision that we did.