Major attacks that have occurred in the United States in the past decades such as the 9/11 one, have caused the government to start using security systems in public places in order to prevent further attacks. Security systems can be beneficial to our society since they are supposed to protect our country and keep the people safe by monitoring individuals’ behaviors, but on the other hand they can also interfere with people’s privacy and liberties. Wendy Kaminer, the author of the article “Trading Liberties for Illusions” and the authors of the article “If Looks Could Kill” have contrasting views on how effective these surveillance systems actually are for America’s society. In her article published in 2002, Kaminer argues about how surveillance…show more content… Their tone is informative because the article was published in a newspaper and their target audience is very broad. Their tone is also neutral, meaning that they do not express their opinions in the paper because they do not have a main argument, they simply address the pros and cons of surveillance cameras with the purpose of informing the reader. In their article, The Economist also utilizes a humorous tone. An example is “(so impatient lovers beware).” The use of parenthesis in this quote means that they are talking directly to the reader and in that context, they are being sarcastic and therefore establishing a connection with the reader by relating the text with real-life events. That is a great technique to engage the reader. On the other hand, Kaminer’s tone is persuasive and her target audience is less broad because her article was published in a nonreligious magazine called Free Inquiry. She uses a condescending tone in order to show confidence. She refers to Americans as uninformed and frightened people, and claims that instead of challenging the effectiveness of security systems, Americans simply “take comfort in whatever false promise of security they are offered” (Kaminer, p.399). This tone makes the reader feel inferior to her and possibly get offended by it therefore it is not effective. Her article would have established a better connection with the reader if…show more content… The Economist divide their article basically into three parts. In the first one, they introduce the reader to the topic and give them a general idea about surveillance systems. The second part is separated from the previous one by the use of the headline “Guilty.” In that section of the text the authors talk about how security systems have improved and how complex they have become. The third part of the text starts with the headline “Until Proven Innocent,” and addresses the counter-claim which is how these surveillance cameras can also fail and many times point out innocents as guilty. This organization strategy is very effective because it shows the reader both sides of the topic and allows them to decide which one they agree with. It has a positive effect on the readers because it strengthens the credibility of the authors. In contrast, Kaminer’s choice of organization is not as successful. Although she does a good job giving background information about events that happened in the past and it draws the reader’s attention to her main argument very well, the organization she chose is weak for a persuasive text. Basically all the body paragraphs in her text are about how her point of view is right and she does not include any other point of view that is different from hers. In order to be persuasive, the author should consider or at least include