Outline
Thesis: Reckless homicide and manslaughter is becoming more common through the mischievous pranks played by young citizens, and it is clearly wrong.

I. In the case of “For Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life,” Thomas Miller, Nissa Baillie, and Christopher Cole stopped near a wreck, standing right next to the fallen stop sign in which had been the reason of the wreck.

1. Miller, Nissa, and Cole admitted to taking down 20 road sign before the crash, however, they were not the ones that badgered with the fallen stop sign that caused the death of the teens.

2. Miller and his friends are hereby guilty of manslaughter according to the homicide laws of Florida.


II. In a similar case of “Revelry and Mischief” in Utah, a group of young people who had been drinking and causing mischief bending over STOP signs, resulted in the homicide of Betty Jean Carley.
III.
1. The Utah law on homicide states that if a person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes the death of a human being, they are committing homicide and manslaughter.

2. In the case of “Revelry and Mischief,” the defendant is proclaimed guilty of reckless homicide.

IV. The case of “Revelry and Mischief” and the case of the fallen stop sign are similar yet different in several ways.

1. Both cases are similar because both dealt with the reckless behavior of young people taking down street signs, resulting in death of other human beings.


2. Though both cases are similar, they also differ because in the case of “revelry and Mischief,” it resulted in the death of one person, but in the case of the fallen stop signs, three people were killed.

After listening or reading to my recent announcement, you'll want to take another try at this outline. You are not arguing which side of the case you want to win. In fact, you are not even singling out one case as the one you're arguing about. Currently, you are comparing and contrasting the facts of the case.

This assignment asks for much more than that. You need to use the facts of the second case to help argue what should happen to the defendant in the first case. I won't repeat everything I said in the announcement, but will direct you to go to our home page and read it there.

Find out which side won each case. Decide which case is "your" case and who you want to win. The other case is your comparison case. Did the comparison case have the same outcome that you want for your case? If so, emphasize the similarities. If not, emphasize the differences. In either case, look beyond the most obvious and think about how your opposition will be trying to prove the reverse of what you're arguing. Anticipate those claims and argue against them. If the opposition will say, "these cases are totally different because of x," you need to prove that x isn't as much of a difference as it seems.

This advice is for EVERYBODY and I will probably be directing a lot of people to come and read this message and this reply.

I left the above Outline without changing it so the rest of the class can see what NOT to do. I am hoping that this outline is an improvement of what is expected.

Outline
Thesis: In the case of “For Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life,” Thomas Miller, Nissa Baillie, and Christopher Cole did not take down the sign that caused the death of three teenagers, therefore they are not guilty of manslaughter.
I. Miller and his friends admitted that they had currently been out taking down about 20 road signs prior to the accident that killed the teenagers.

1. According to the Florida Homicide Law, “Manslaughter is basically murder without intent, and can be charged in cases where mere negligence is involved, including vehicular manslaughter, which occurs when a drunk driver causes an accident that results in death.

2. There is no evidence showing that the sign was actually taken down by Miller and his friends.

II. In a similar case of “Revelry and Mischief” in Utah, a group of young people who had been drinking and causing mischief bending over STOP signs, resulted in the homicide of a woman.

1. Both of these cases involved young adults that had been drinking and were looking for a thrill and nor the people injured or the accused had a relationship or knew each other for the accused to want to cause them intentional harm.

2. In both cases, the people that had driven by and noticed the stop sign was no longer there, failed to report it, so it can be said that they also played a part in the accidents.

III. Though the cases are very similar, in the case of “Revelry and Mischief,” there was not enough evidence to prove that Hallet was indeed at fault for the accident.

1. In Hallet’s Case, Hallet did actually bend down the sign, as with the fallen stop sign case, Miller did not badger with the stop sign that caused the accident with no proof otherwise.

2. In the case of Hallet, it was evidenced that Hallet bent the sign down which lead to homicide according to the Utah homicide laws, and in the case of the fallen stop sign, the prosecutor claims that Miller and his friends committed manslaughter without evidence of Miller and his friends taking down the sign.

Yes, this is much better. I can see how you are insisting on a crucial difference that means that your outcome should be different from the comparative case. I also see that even in the similarities section you are actively arguing your side (shifting blame onto the other passersby). One more note about emphasis, make sure that most of your essay is about arguing these similarities and differences (if you can find even other ways to make the apparent similarity seem more different, even better). Spend minimal time actually describing the cases. This is because we already have access to that information. The reader wants to be impressed by your argument and not spend half the paper recapping the facts that we already have in the book (the assignment is not just to copy facts from the book to your essay). In other words, parts III and IV should take up much more space in your essay than parts I and II.