Linguistic Assignment


Please Follow the instructions carefully

write an A comparative analysis paper 3-4 pages .

A comparative analysis requires you to compare HOW the authors make their arguments. For example, you may consider the kinds of evidence or examples used in the two articles. A comparative analysis is not a simple compare and contrast or summary, and you should remain objective and avoid giving your opinion about the topic itself.

Please follow the Grading Rubric in the attached prompt.

The essay should be like

• Introduction
• Body ( one Idea in each paragraph ) The Body should have 4 compare or contrast ideas

1- Analyze (Organization) of both articles
Article A
Article B
Give examples from both texts

2- Analyze ( Type of evidence)
From article A & B
Give examples from both text

3- Audience,
Knowing that in the
article A (Trading Liberty for Illusions) ;the audience are Libertarians because the article written in Free inquiry .

in Article B (If looks Could kill ) it written to public .

Give examples from both text

4- in this paragraph you can chose to compare or contrast ( Language , Tone , Strategies , … )
from both articles & give examples

• Conclusion
Restate the thesis statement

Pleas use simple language im an international student do not use too advanced words.

The first article in this link ( )

The second article is attached


Surveillance Technology and Individual Liberty


Introduction. 2

Analysis of the articles’ organization. 3

Analysis of the Evidence. 3

Audience. 4

Language, Tone, and Strategies. 4

Conclusion. 5

References. 5


            The aim of this paper is to compare two articles that the use of surveillance tools such as face recognition technology to improve security. The paper is based on the thesis that face technologies need to be perfected to avoid identifying innocent people as terror suspects as well as restricting individual liberty. The first article, which was published in The Economist, explains the latest technologies that are being developed to detect hostile intentions before a criminal activity or terrorist attack is carried out. The article argues that unless the surveillance technology is perfected, it is likely to have the serious negative effect of identifying innocent people as terror suspects. Experts argue that to avoid this problem, security personnel should not let computers and technological gadgets to take over the surveillance role. Rather, they should act as the final arbiters in security situations that are highlighted by the technologies.


            The second article is by Kaminer (2004), who argues that people tend to impose restrictions on liberty whenever they become frightened, hoping that these measures will enhance their security. Kaminer (2004) gives several examples of revered presidents who curtailed people’s liberties without any shame in the wake of security threats. According to Kaminer (2004), the folly of those actions tend to be appreciated many years afterwards, long after the fear of insecurity is gone. The article also explores the false promise of facial recognition technology that was introduced in the wake of terrorist attacks on American soil on September 11, 2001. The article argues that the surveillance technology has served to restrict liberty and create illusions of security rather than bring about actual benefits in the form of national security.

Analysis of the articles’ organization

            In the first article (The Economist, 2008), the author begins by explaining the current situation as far as security surveillance technologies are concerned. He explains the state of the art for these technologies, the successes achieved so far, and the challenges that need to be addressed. The introduction section is followed by a section titled “Guilty”. This is followed by the last section, which is titled “Until Proven Innocent”. Taken together, these subheadings send a strong message about the serious problems people should expect to face when seeking to use surveillance cameras to improve security, such as catching and punishing innocent people.

            In the second article, Kaminer (2004) begins by providing a historical overview of how Americans have reacted when they were confronted by fear of insecurity. The author shows that Americans sought to restrict liberty of certain categories of people, for example racial minorities, with the hope that this would make insecurity to go away. She examines the issue of facial recognition technologies based on this historical context with a view to illustrate its shortcomings.

Analysis of the Evidence

            The first article explains the challenges of face recognition in a simple, direct manner. For example, it explains how an impatient lover walking up and down a stairwell impatiently may be identified by a surveillance camera as a potential perpetrator of a terrorist attack (The Economist, 2008). Moreover, throughout the article, the author provides examples to show that facial recognition technology is yet to move out of laboratories to be applied in the real world. For example, the article provides information on James Davis, a video expert who is developing a surveillance system whereby a series of cameras track and monitor the activities of individuals who are identified as suspicious.


            In the second article, Kaminer (2004) also provides examples to illustrate her arguments. In one example, she points out that during the World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt decided to intern Japanese-Americans, thereby violating their liberty. The article also provides examples of situations where surveillance systems have been misused. A case in point is London, where camera operators have been accused of focusing too much on racial minorities and women’s skirts instead of highlighting real security threats (Kaminer, 2004).


            The first article (The Economist, 2008) was written to the public at large while the second one (Kaminer, 2004) was written to libertarians. This explains why the author of the first article goes directly to the issues the public can relate to at the outset. The article simply outlines the technologies being developed, their features, benefits, shortcomings, and prospects for national security. It also provides simple examples that anyone can relate to as far as security issues are concerned. In contrast, the second article gives a more in-depth approach, complete with examples from historical events. These examples may not be familiar with everyone but are of utmost relevance to civil libertarians. For example, many people may not know that thousands of Americans were arrested by the Lincoln administration for simply criticizing their president.

Language, Tone, and Strategies

            The first article uses an informal tone while the second article used a formal tone. An example of an informal tone is the author’s use of very short sentences such as “Is that suspicious?” and humorous examples such as the one about “impatient lovers” (The Economist, 2008). In contrast, the second article is based on a formal tone, complete with phrases that are often to be found in academic journal articles and policy papers such as “habeas corpus” and “faux security measures” (Kaminer, 2004).


The analysis made in this paper shows that governments are moving with speed to install face recognition technology before it has been fully perfected simply to create an illusion of security. This practice also restricts people’s liberty. Moreover, it misleads security agencies into arresting innocent people and accusing them of attempting to cause a security breach. According to the two articles, people should not be accused of being a threat to national security based on inaccurate surveillance technologies. Thus, this paper confirms the thesis that face technologies need to be perfected to avoid identifying innocent people as terror suspects as well as restricting individual liberty.


Kaminer, W. (2004). Trading Liberty for Illusions. Free Inquiry magazine, 22(2), 1-2.

The Economist (2008). If Looks Could Kill. October 23, 2008. London: The Economist.

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code :