Today I will be writing about how people from 2

different occupations or careers would look at the

same topics in 2 different perspectives. I will be
pointing out moves that the writers make and
explain which writer had a better argument. I will be
basing it off of supporting details and resources that
each writer has given. I have found 2 different types
of articles on drugs and crime. The first article I
would say is more like government perspective on
drugs and crime. The second article was more looked
at from a journalist point of view.
The first article was from a government website and talked
mainly about statistics and fats. Being as though its on a
government website the information and resources are more trust
worthy. The article was very informal also it gave all sorts of
resources. By giving resources I would call that The resource
move. For example the article stated In 2004, 17% of state
prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they
committed their current offense to obtain money for
drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for
federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for
state prisoners (19% in 1997).
Source: BJS, Drug Use and Dependence, State and
Federal Prisoners, 2004, NCJ 213530, October 2006
and Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal
Prisoners, 1997, NCJ 172871, January 1999.

The writer of the article made a move called

capturing authorial action move. He made this
move by letting the readers know what the inmates
claimed they had caught their cases based on. The
writer lets the reader know that these facts are
accurate because its based off surveys from the
actual inmates them selves.
In the article the writer also use a move called the
camparisonmove. The article stated In 2002 about a quarter of
convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed
their crimes to get money for drugs, compared to 5% of violent
and public order offenders. Among state prisoners in 2004 the
pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%)
more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent
(10%) and public-order offenders (7%). In federal prisons property
offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders
(25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses.
The move that the writer made was a good move to use and a
very informal move. I think the author chose to use this move
because he wanted to let the readers have some type of ideas
around which times these offenses occurred. If I was to give this
move a grade I would give it a A because I think its very
useful. I like that the article is more set up into graphs showing
the number of homicides and the number of homicides that were
drug related. The graphs have so much detail from year dates to
numbers of homicides.

Heres an example of how the graph is set up

Year

Number of homicides

Percent drug related

1987

17,963

4.9 %

1988

17,971

5.6

1989

18,954

7.4

1990

20,273

6.7

1991

21,676

6.2

1992

22,716

5.7

1993

23,180

5.5

1994

22,084

5.6

1995

20,232

5.1

1996

16,967

5.0

1997

15,837

5.1

1998

14,276

4.8

1999

13,011

4.5

2000

13,230

4.5

2001

14,061

4.1

2002

14,263

4.7

2003

14,465

4.7

2004

14,210

3.9

2005

14,965

4.0

2006

15.087

5.3

2007

14,831

3.9

I can also name this example a move. Im going

to make up this move and I think I should call it the
show the reader visually move. I call this move
the show the reader visually move because the

writer actually show you the charts and graphs. His

arguments were based on facts and statistics.
Being as though this article was on a government
website (www.bjs.gov). I would say it was looked at
from a government point of view . A person who
might want to study a topic like this might have
degree in math and criminal justice. This article was
more so statistically driven. There was a lot of logos
shown in this article and mainly numbers.
The next article I have found was a article
that would be looked at from a journalist point of
view. This article was on the same topic but was
looked at differently because of difference in
occupations. The article is called parents house seized
after son drug .

This article was about a family that lived in the

Philadelphia suburbs. Christos Sourovelis (The teenage
boy father) was very hard working man. he worked
6 days a week some times 7. His parents had no
idea he was selling drugs till the cops showed up
one day. Because of the son wrong doing the

parents have got their home taken away. Christos

stated "Im a working guy. I work every day, six days a
week, even seven if I have to," m a working guy. I work
every day, six days a week, even seven if I have to,"
Sourovelis says. One day this past March, without
warning, the government took his house away, even
though he and his wife, Markella, have never been
charged with a crime or accused of any wrongdoing. says.
One day this past March, without warning, the government
took his house away, even though he and his wife,
Markella, have never been charged with a crime or
accused of any
wrongdoing.http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphi
a-drug-bust-house-seizure/

This article differs from the government article beacuse

its more so set up like a journalist would set it up. It
haves different moves and approaches in it. It was based
off of interviews and basically close up. Kind of like a
movie. These 2 articles are on the same topic but yet are
looked at differently be cause of the different occupation
one has. One article was more numbers and statistics while
the other article was in essay form. That how these to
occupations see one topic in different perspectives.