Thesis Paragraph (Opinion Statement)

User Generated

ohuuwx

Writing

Description

Thesis Paragraph (Opinion Statement)

Your opinion statement a single, strongly worded statement of opinion, about the essay's entire topic, posed in such a way that argues the thing you hope to convince your audience of by the end of the essay.

Thesis Paragraph (Background Sentences)

2-3 sentences of foundational background related to your topic, in order to assist your audience in their baseline understanding of the issue.

Thesis Paragraph (Reasons=Buzzwords)

2-4 sentences that use specific buzzwords, that will serve as identified concept words throughout your essay, upon which you'll base your "reasons" for your stated opinion. Buzzwords in your essay are colored or highlighted.

Major Transition Sentences (In and Out)

You employ major transition sentences throughout your essay, wherein you utilize one buzzword per section of your essay, in the same order as was seen in your thesis paragraph, with one buzzword in the first sentence of the section, and two buzzwords in the last sentence of the section. There are no changes in the buzzwords throughout the entire essay.

Minor Transitions

When employing multiple paragraphs in a section, paragraphs must be connected by a minor transition word or phrase, which provides rhythm and cadence between paragraphs.

Paragraphs (3 Parts)

Paragraphs throughout the whole have three identified parts: (1) a mini thesis which depicts what you hope to convey (convince) during that single paragraph; (2) your evidence (properly cited when necessary); and (3) your explanation of how the evidence you've used actually proves what you say it does.

Conclusion (3 Parts)

Conclusion should conform to 3 part structure as follows: (1) first section ties opinion sentence to conclusion, and reiterates concept(s) conveyed in that sentence; (2) demonstrates what the relationship is between the buzzwords (this is different than simply repeating the buzzwords); and (3) discusses the relevance of this essay's topic to the public at large.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS Case of the Spelunkers: No Excuse for Murder First Last San José State University 1 THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 2 No matter what the situation might be, taking away a person’s life is simply immoral, and it deserves the maximum penalty possible. Four best friends who are originally planning to go mountain climbing decide to go cave exploring. These men end up trapped in the cave with limited food, which bring about the idea of sacrificing one of them to save the others. Four and a half weeks later, the three are saved but immediately face public outrage regarding the murder. This essay will discuss the spelunkers’ decisions that lead to sacrificing a friend. This essay will analyze the backgrounds of the spelunkers and the situations in which the spelunkers are trapped in, and as a result, choosing to murder. Although their focus is solely on survival, they should face the consequences of their action. The spelunkers made a series of decisions together, leading to the final decision of killing to escape what was supposed to be group responsibilities. First, they decided to change their plans from mountain climbing to cave exploring. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 2). Although they heard the loud cracking sound in the distance, they still explored further instead of immediately going back (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 3-4). Seeing how it took five and a half weeks for them to be rescued, it is safe to say that they did not notify anyone about the change of plans. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7-9). Up to this point, all of these were decided together. Certainly, the fact that they were trapped in the cave was an unexpected incident. However, it was not a price that only one person should pay. Everyone contributed something. Their last options were either taking the responsibility together, or “dumping” it all on someone, namely Paul. They chose to save themselves and betrayed Paul. Just like the previous impulsive choices they made, such as changing plans, and moving forward even after the cracking noise, it finally lead to a bigger question: to kill or not to kill. They made these decisions out of their selfishness and emotions, based on the backgrounds of each person. THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 3 All four of the spelunkers, Greg, John, Paul, and Peter, have different backgrounds. Greg is married and wealthy because of his parents; John is also married and is an eBay executive; Peter is an ordained minister who is single; Paul, lastly, does not have a job and has a kid from his previous marriage (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). Let’s not forget the fact that they— supposedly—are best friends (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). For instance, Greg, the one who suggested the dreadful idea of killing must have had reasons why he was so eager to stay alive. Other than the fact that he was married, he was a wealthy man. He had a lot to lose and would do anything in his power to survive. John and Peter just followed the advice blindly. They should have thought twice before they throw their ethics out of the window and decided to kill for their own sake. They killed Paul, along with Paul’s hope to see his child. These differences in their backgrounds lead to a different way of problem solving in difficult situations. The spelunkers were trapped in some tough situations, causing them to slowly reveal their dark side. When they were faced with the matter of life and death, the spelunkers did whatever they can to survive. That, however, does not mean that this murder is justified. No matter what circumstances it might be, no one should get away with murder. There are different reasons why murder should not be an option for this case. First, Paul did not voluntarily offer himself as a lamb to be slain. He thought it was a terrible idea, and he did not want to be a part of it (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). In spite of Paul’s disagreement, the other three still proceeded with the plan. Paul is a human being that still wants to survive; he wants to live. It is true that this murder is not premeditated. None of these three planned, “Let’s go to a cave and kill Paul.” However, that does not mean that an instantaneous decision to kill is better than premeditated, and therefore does not require punishment. If that is THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 4 the case, should people start jabbing others with a knife whenever they have that on-the-spot need to kill? Also, there is no strong defense to prove the circumstances were so severe that the only way out was killing Paul. They know there was a source of water trickling through the cave, and they also have four powerbars left (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 6). Moreover, it was only one week after they are trapped when the three spelunkers decided to kill Paul (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). According to How Stuff Works website, most doctors said that human can survive without food for about 8 weeks, depending on the body’s condition and metabolism (Bryant, 2008, para. 2). Although they did not have adequate food, they had a source of water. With enough hydration, all four could have survived. Greg, John, and Peter, acted recklessly based on fear after only one week. The cost is someone’s life, and they should be punished for that. Looking at these situations, murder should not be the way out, and the spelunkers should not expect they could avoid the consequences after doing such horrendous action. People have to face the consequences after every action, whether they are positive or negative. Of course, the positive outcome is that the three survived. But the repercussion of taking someone’s life is huge. Although there are no charges for cannibalism, it falls under murder and desecration of corpse (Wex Legal Dictionary, n.d., para. 1). Without a doubt, it is a violation of the law, and letting it pass just because the other three are desperate and having sudden fears is the antithesis of justice. For this reason alone, there is definitely a sentence that needs to be passed, no matter what vindication might be posed by the perpetrator. Murder is a criminal conduct, and the perpetrators should be charged with homicide, regardless of their justification for the action. Although it is true that they are trapped in an unexpected situations, the spelunkers should have acted with careful reasoning, instead of THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS momentary impulse, before jumping to the conclusion of killing a friend. Thoughtless decisions cause greater consequences to face. Those decisions are the products of one’s personal backgrounds and aggravated by the situations in which he or she is in. In this case, impulsive thinking has proven to be a dangerous thing. The society is faced with choices everyday, and sometimes, they make hasty judgment. Small actions count and lead to a bigger one, and consequently, bigger effects. Every man and woman should think twice before diving into an extreme situation, and small gestures like informing others when going places can make a huge difference in cases like these and everyday life. This simple act can save someone’s life. 5 THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 6 References Bryant, Charles W. (2008). How long can you go without food and water: Living without food. How Stuff Works. Retrieved from http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/live-without-food-andwater1.htm Cannibalism. (n.d.). In Wex Legal Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document]. Retrieved from https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760 Writing Assignment 1 (WA1) The Case of the Spelunkers 4 best friends, all of whom were males, decided to go on an adventure excursion for the weekend. Two of the men, Greg and John, were married; the other two, Paul and Peter, were single. Paul has a child by a previous marriage. Peter is an ordained minister, Greg is independently wealthy from his parent’s trust fund, John is an EBay executive, and Paul is unemployed. The four men had initially decided to go mountain climbing, but on route, changed their plans and decided to go cave exploring (spelunking) in the Providence Mountain State recreation area (remotely situated in California). At the close of the first long day of cave exploring, the men were deep in a remote cavern preparing to camp in a “cave cathedral” when they heard, in the distant recesses of the cave (near the entrance), a loud cracking sound. The next day, the men venture just a little further (until the entryways were too narrow for exploration) before turning back. Near what they hope is the first mile of the cave entrance, they discover that there has been an enormous cave-in and the way out is completely blocked. While they try every attempt to clear the exit, it is to no avail. After taking stock of their surroundings, they are painfully aware of the fact that though there is a source of water trickling through the cave about a mile and a half inward, they only have 4 Powerbars left between them. A week passes. As they sit in despair of their lives, their bellies empty, Greg suggests a fateful course of action—they will draw straws to determine who must be “sacrificed” in order to feed the remainder of the friends (so that the remaining three have any hope of making it out alive). John and Peter both agree with the plan and take their straws—Paul is horrified by the idea. He tells his friends that if they want to do whatever they want to do, that is fine, but they should leave him out of it. Taking this advice, Greg, John, and Peter select 4 straws and place them in hand and each of the three men takes his straw (leaving one remaining for Paul who refuses to draw). As it turns out, the last straw remaining, the one they allocated for Paul, is the shortest straw. The three men kill and eat Paul before they are rescued 4 and one half weeks later. When the men reveal the gruesome details of their ordeal, the public outrage is immediate and the men face moral repudiation and charges in court for homicide. 1) This persuasive essay will test your ability to employ thoughtful and effective use of the principles and techniques regarding: Topic, Audience, Purpose (T.A.P.), style, tone, and voice. Additionally it may include elements on buzzword captures, prewriting elements, thesis paragraph structure (O.T.R), and major/minor transition sentences. 2) Please note, you may (and should) review the assignment RUBRIC by clicking on the Case of the Spelunkers Assignment on the Canvas Shell. You will see an exact point distribution that also serves as a reminder of critical concepts tested by this assignment. Running head: THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS Case of the Spelunkers: No Excuse for Murder First Last San José State University 1 THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 2 No matter what the situation might be, taking away a person’s life is simply immoral, and it deserves the maximum penalty possible. Four best friends who are originally planning to go mountain climbing decide to go cave exploring. These men end up trapped in the cave with limited food, which bring about the idea of sacrificing one of them to save the others. Four and a half weeks later, the three are saved but immediately face public outrage regarding the murder. This essay will discuss the spelunkers’ decisions that lead to sacrificing a friend. This essay will analyze the backgrounds of the spelunkers and the situations in which the spelunkers are trapped in, and as a result, choosing to murder. Although their focus is solely on survival, they should face the consequences of their action. The spelunkers made a series of decisions together, leading to the final decision of killing to escape what was supposed to be group responsibilities. First, they decided to change their plans from mountain climbing to cave exploring. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 2). Although they heard the loud cracking sound in the distance, they still explored further instead of immediately going back (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 3-4). Seeing how it took five and a half weeks for them to be rescued, it is safe to say that they did not notify anyone about the change of plans. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7-9). Up to this point, all of these were decided together. Certainly, the fact that they were trapped in the cave was an unexpected incident. However, it was not a price that only one person should pay. Everyone contributed something. Their last options were either taking the responsibility together, or “dumping” it all on someone, namely Paul. They chose to save themselves and betrayed Paul. Just like the previous impulsive choices they made, such as changing plans, and moving forward even after the cracking noise, it finally lead to a bigger question: to kill or not to kill. They made these decisions out of their selfishness and emotions, based on the backgrounds of each person. THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 3 All four of the spelunkers, Greg, John, Paul, and Peter, have different backgrounds. Greg is married and wealthy because of his parents; John is also married and is an eBay executive; Peter is an ordained minister who is single; Paul, lastly, does not have a job and has a kid from his previous marriage (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). Let’s not forget the fact that they— supposedly—are best friends (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). For instance, Greg, the one who suggested the dreadful idea of killing must have had reasons why he was so eager to stay alive. Other than the fact that he was married, he was a wealthy man. He had a lot to lose and would do anything in his power to survive. John and Peter just followed the advice blindly. They should have thought twice before they throw their ethics out of the window and decided to kill for their own sake. They killed Paul, along with Paul’s hope to see his child. These differences in their backgrounds lead to a different way of problem solving in difficult situations. The spelunkers were trapped in some tough situations, causing them to slowly reveal their dark side. When they were faced with the matter of life and death, the spelunkers did whatever they can to survive. That, however, does not mean that this murder is justified. No matter what circumstances it might be, no one should get away with murder. There are different reasons why murder should not be an option for this case. First, Paul did not voluntarily offer himself as a lamb to be slain. He thought it was a terrible idea, and he did not want to be a part of it (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). In spite of Paul’s disagreement, the other three still proceeded with the plan. Paul is a human being that still wants to survive; he wants to live. It is true that this murder is not premeditated. None of these three planned, “Let’s go to a cave and kill Paul.” However, that does not mean that an instantaneous decision to kill is better than premeditated, and therefore does not require punishment. If that is THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 4 the case, should people start jabbing others with a knife whenever they have that on-the-spot need to kill? Also, there is no strong defense to prove the circumstances were so severe that the only way out was killing Paul. They know there was a source of water trickling through the cave, and they also have four powerbars left (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 6). Moreover, it was only one week after they are trapped when the three spelunkers decided to kill Paul (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). According to How Stuff Works website, most doctors said that human can survive without food for about 8 weeks, depending on the body’s condition and metabolism (Bryant, 2008, para. 2). Although they did not have adequate food, they had a source of water. With enough hydration, all four could have survived. Greg, John, and Peter, acted recklessly based on fear after only one week. The cost is someone’s life, and they should be punished for that. Looking at these situations, murder should not be the way out, and the spelunkers should not expect they could avoid the consequences after doing such horrendous action. People have to face the consequences after every action, whether they are positive or negative. Of course, the positive outcome is that the three survived. But the repercussion of taking someone’s life is huge. Although there are no charges for cannibalism, it falls under murder and desecration of corpse (Wex Legal Dictionary, n.d., para. 1). Without a doubt, it is a violation of the law, and letting it pass just because the other three are desperate and having sudden fears is the antithesis of justice. For this reason alone, there is definitely a sentence that needs to be passed, no matter what vindication might be posed by the perpetrator. Murder is a criminal conduct, and the perpetrators should be charged with homicide, regardless of their justification for the action. Although it is true that they are trapped in an unexpected situations, the spelunkers should have acted with careful reasoning, instead of THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS momentary impulse, before jumping to the conclusion of killing a friend. Thoughtless decisions cause greater consequences to face. Those decisions are the products of one’s personal backgrounds and aggravated by the situations in which he or she is in. In this case, impulsive thinking has proven to be a dangerous thing. The society is faced with choices everyday, and sometimes, they make hasty judgment. Small actions count and lead to a bigger one, and consequently, bigger effects. Every man and woman should think twice before diving into an extreme situation, and small gestures like informing others when going places can make a huge difference in cases like these and everyday life. This simple act can save someone’s life. 5 THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS 6 References Bryant, Charles W. (2008). How long can you go without food and water: Living without food. How Stuff Works. Retrieved from http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/live-without-food-andwater1.htm Cannibalism. (n.d.). In Wex Legal Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document]. Retrieved from https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: THE CASE OF SPELUNKERS

The Case of Spelunkers

1

THE CASE OF SPELUNKERS

2

The ideology or whether or not murder can be justified has created heated controversial
debates with follow-ups on reasoning based on circumstance. Murder is recognized and understood
as a serious offense. Despite such cases being widely condemned, some individuals argue the
events of murder arbitrary from a moral viewpoint. Murder is however characterized by
irresponsibility, injustice and thus no degree of circumstance should justify its occurrence. Four
friends decide to take a trip to the caves which later turned haywire after being trapped and lacking
an exit zone. The resort to killing one of their own to survive is not only immoral but also violates
the rule of law. This essay examines the irresponsible ordeals of the friends that led to the sacrifice.
It will analyze the lack of knowledge of other survival methods. The essay will finalize with
appropriate penalty charges for the three friends as a punishment for murder.
The four best friends decided to take an adventure excursion to the mountains. The journey
to the mountain was however altered on the route, and they decided to go cave exploring in the
mountain state recreation area. In the deep remote carven, the four men prepared to camp...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags