In every Categorical argument, logical arguments are used to determine any category of an object or a concept by using its known classification of related or shared characteristics. They stand for a syllogism, meaning that a structured argument can be formed by two premises and can become a conclusion. In the Trail of OJ Simpson vs. The state, it created arguments that became the fan base anf through law enforcement. OJ had a lot of emotional support throughout the rail from his fans and family, his name gave him a very big name during this. The prosecution should have appealed the verdict to a higher appeals court arguing that the defendant’s behavior during the trial was so egregious that the verdict should be overturned. The main question everyone wants to know is, “Is OJ Simpson guilty?”. A lot of evidence points out that the victim (Nicole Brown Simpson)’s ex-husband was the murderer but the jury felt otherwise. The state failed this trial because due to the amount of evidence that helped prove that
Mr. Simpson was capable of these crimes. Mental illness played a factor, as past abusive behavior, and even DNA evidence that tried him to gloves at the crime scene. The jury struggled to take Mr. Simpson seriously due to his image in the football industry, being a hometown hero for everyone and their families. The state tried very hard to prove OJ wasn’t innocent, for example, he had not an alibi, so how would he not be considered a suspect? A webpage called Quora stated that “Between the state failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, his lawyers casting doubt, a jury bedazzled by fame, and racial tension in the community, OJ was able to be acquitted”.
The community felt that a black man was being wrongly accused after all the good he’s done while being a huge motivation to children and families. That gave law enforcement a harder task because they didn’t want the people to get offended or anything. After a couple of months, OJ’s team was trying to get him acquitted of the murder counts of
Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. It took 11 months through the trial and court after court, the jury didn’t think he was guilty, even after the glove trying on in front of the jury, DNA evidence, and no alibi. The definition of this argument is finding out why Mr. Simpson wasn’t guilty with the evidence given, it created a major argument in the black community. The biggest turning point had to be the no witnesses during the time of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.
DNA evidence came in favor of Oj rather than against him as it should’ve, but his reasoning was he already lived there, and his DNA would be anywhere. Simpson’s DNA at the murder scene was the bigger key physical proof that was used and examined by the prosecution to try and link O. J. Simpson to the time of the heinous crime. Almost nine weeks of testimony and evidence being reviewed over, along with 108 samples of DNA evidence during the court trial.
Peanut, this is a mess. I’d like to consider it on its merits as a credible first draft of a persuasive argument, but it’s so riddled with typographical errors and outright grammar/syntax/punctuation/spelling errors that it can’t be considered worthy of your best effort.
I’ve given your draft a provisional grade of 50/100. It’s the best you’ll receive until you make this version presentable. It doesn’t have to be a polished final draft, but it does need to reflect your actual ability to write a paper in fluent English.