1) The purpose of the source is to inform people about a court case in Oklahoma and how people feel about the death penalty. 2) The article talks about Oklahoman's opinion on the death penalty. 3) The audience this article was intended for was anybody, just informing the people on what people think about the death penalty. 4) "I interviewed three people who struggled to fight back tears. Reader, my eyes welled up, too.", this is an example of a rhetorical appeal because the writer is trying to make the article sad and have people feel empathy. It worked; it makes the readers feel empathy because they can assume how the people are feeling. 5) This source complicates the topic because it's an opposite opinion on what I personally think. 6) No defects, or biases. 7) This source was useful by showing me another perspective on my idea.

1) A summary of the theme/purpose of the source, 2) a brief description of the article, 3) a comment on the intended audience, 4) discuss rhetorical appeal used in cited source and whether it was effective and why or why not, and 5) an explanation of how the source helps define, complicate, or clarify the topic, 6) explain any defect, weakness or bias, 7) evaluate the usefulness or relevance to your research topic.

1) The purpose of the source is to show the retributivist and abolitionist opinion on the death penalty. 2) Retributivists think the death penalty is correct because they believe an "eye for an eye", while abolitionist think the death penalty is wrong. 3) The intended audience was any and everyone, just informing people of two different opinions. 4) "Thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe", is a rhetorical appeal and it's effective because it makes a connection with people on a religious level. 5) This source makes the topic more define because it shows two different perspectives and opinions on my topic. 6) No weakness or defect. 7) This source was useful because it wasn't one sided at all simply resourceful and supported both sides.

1) The purpose of this source was to show the history of the death penalty. 2) The article starts with the code of Hammurabi and goes until lethal injection. 3) This is meant for anyone who is interested in knowing the history of the death penalty. 4) There wasn't any rhetorical appeal, so it was ineffective. 5) The source clarifies the topic by incorporating the history of the death penalty. 6) This source was a little bit too monotone and not passionate. 7) It was useful because it shows the history of the death penalty.