Tow #7: Article: "No to More Casinos in New York State" by The Editorial Board of The New York Times

The Editorial Board of the New York Times consists of nineteen people that write opinion pieces that reflect the views of the editor and publisher of The New York Times. "No to More Casinos in New York State" was clearly written because The New York Times is against adding seven more casinos throughout the state of New York. The purpose of this article was to convince voters to say no to the idea when they vote on November 5th. The Editorial Board uses statistics, data from credible sources, and examples of failed casinos in other states to convince New York citizens to vote no. I think that The New York Times will successfully achieve their purpose because they appeal to logos throughout the entire article. They use Atlantic City as an example of how casinos will be a negative addition to the state. According to a report form the Center for Gambling Research, in Atlantic City, "the unemployment rate is at about 18 percent, and the crime rate is almost three times that of the surrounding country." This statistic in the article is one of many that was taken from a credible source that showed how a city is negatively affected by casinos. The Editorial Board also refutes many counterarguments from the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. They said that there is no doubt that some of the cities in New York need an economic boost, but there are other more successful ways to do it. By including this argument, the article further appealed to logos therefore strengthening the argument. Although the argument was mainly logical, there were some choice words the Editorial Board used to generate an emotional response. For example, the topic sentence of the fifth paragraph states that "when the gambling revenues begin to shrink, taxpayers lose." The word "lose" has a strong negative connotation and appeals to pathos. The New York Times is basically saying that no one wants to be a loser, so why vote to lose. It is clear exactly what the New York Times was arguing and there was a lot of irrefutable evidence to support their claim, therefore I think they will ultimately achieve their purpose.