Today in class we discussed an argument from the New York Times that questioned whether or not we should get rid of senior year, or at least make it optional. I think what I found interesting about the argument was that it tended to bounce around from one idea to the next without really providing sufficient evidence to back their claims up. This shows that one doesn’t require a lot of logic to pull off an almost convincing argument, as long as they’re using some of the correct literary devices to boost their claim. Coincidentally, today I watched one of the debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The fate of our country rests in the results of this election(Mr. Obama sir, you were a good president). As I was watching this debate, I noticed that Mr. Trump tended to focus more so on insulting Hillary Clinton than backing up his ideas and propositions for if he were to become president. He jumped back and forth from answering the questions on domestic issues and calling out the scandals of Hillary Clinton. This, I noticed, was very similar to the argument that we analyzed in class. He had basically no counterargument, but from what I could see, it was his ferocious approach on his candidacy that gained him so many followers. I didn’t expect many people to like this approach, but I guess people want a president who can speak their mind, without worrying about other’s opinions.