Thomas Stevenson Against The Cat Bill

In his argument against the Cat Bill, Stevenson enhances his reasons for vetoing the Cat Bill by using tone, details, and imagery. While making his argument, Stevenson uses one tone toward the legislature and another tone toward the bill. He uses “the Honorable” to address the members of the Senate, and he ends with “Respectfully” to keep his statement formal. His use of this respectful tone enhances his ethical appeal so that the audience will be more apt to accept his veto despite the fact that he attacks them for passing this legislation. While he uses a respectful tone toward the audience, he utilizes a tone of mockery toward the bill. Stevenson believes that enforcing the bill is a waste of resources, stating

He supports his claims with details, making his statement logical while proving the unrealistic nature of the Cat Bill. Stevenson asserts that the bill creates more problems for the cats and owners rather than solving the trouble; “To escort a cat abroad on a leash is against the nature of the cat, and to permit to venture forth the exercise unattended into a night of new dangers is against the nature of the owner.” Stevenson first reasons that the bill restricts the movement of the cat, violating their freedom as animals. Second, the conflicts will arise with the owners when other people catch their cats for trespassing into their property. The point of the bill is to solve conflicts; however, it will create enmity between people. Not only does Stevenson list the consequences of the bill, but he also provides the benefits of cats when the freedom was given to them; “Moreover, cats perform useful service, particulary in rural rea, in combating rodents- work they necessarily perform and alone and without regard for property lines.” Stevenson once again describes the cat work better in the environment where there are no laws which prohibit them to go on other people’s properties. He argues that there are no benefits out of the Cat Bill because it only produces negative consequences. Stevenson uses reasons and examples to back his claim that the bill is useless and ineffective. His support with logical appeal makes his argument sound compelling, which reinforces his explanation why he vetoes the