R.A. Democracy in Asia

1. The argumement is this paper is for rule-of-law education to continue in Cambodia

Taking away rule-of-law education in Cambodia will harm the growth of democracy in Cambodia, because taking away rule-of-law education in Cambodia will make Cambodians less educated concerning democracy and the rule-of-law.

2. The audience is people on the conference committee concerning this issue or maybe people who have an influence on the conference committee concerning this issue.

3. The author uses a lot of logos to target the audience. Obviously the people he is writing to are very intelligent. He gives a lot of background information, methodically making his case. He clearly explains his reasons and he explains how taking away rule-of-law education will only exacerbate the situation. His audience is probably very interested in his credibility also. He is a law professor and directer of the Cambodia Law and Democracy program at USF. He obviously knows a lot about this issue. probably even more than the conference committee who will ultimately make the decision, because he is constantly studying the situation in Cambodia. I'm not sure if his argument is sufficient. His argument does make sense, but he doesn't have tons of evidence that what he's saying is true. Congress thinks that the education didn't work, because Hun Sen was victorious in Cambodia, really setting back democractic progress. The author never really addresses why he thinks that happened. His argument is typical, though. Nothing he says is far-fetched or crazy at all. He is very accurate, because he is getting information from the best sources possible. He has a quote from the Asian Wall Street Journal, which would probably be very informed about this situation. He doesn't rely too heavily on his quotes, either. He is relevant, because he is talking about concerns that his audience probably has. He understands what they are looking for.

4. I think his argument is effective. His main problem is his lack of hard evidence, but that kind of thing is hard in a situation like this, because no one really knows what would happen either way.