Critical Thinking Assignment Part Two Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Critical Thinking Part Two - Assignment Example The phenomenon of interest for the study appears to be risk of reoccurrence of cancer in cancer survivors 4. Abstract: The essential contents of the research are included in the abstract. The research question, focus methods, analysis, and major findings were summarized in the abstract: Background: Recent research shows that cancer survivors are at greater risk of developing cancer than the general population. Although recommended, many cancer survivors receive no regular cancer screening. Cancer survivors’ perceptions of their second cancer risk are, in part, suspected to influence their participation in cancer screening. Objective: This study was conducted to explore how cancer survivors define and interpret second cancer risk. Methods: An interpretive descriptive approach was taken whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 cancer survivors (16 women and 6 men) drawn from a provincial cancer registry. The sample ranged in age from 19 to 87 years. The cancer h istory of the participants varied. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method of data analysis. Results: The overall theme, ‘‘life after cancer living with risk,’’ described cancer survivors’ sense that risk is now a part of their everyday lives. Two themes emerged from the data that speak to how cancer survivors lived with second cancer risk: (1) thinking about second risk and (2) living with risk: a family affair. Conclusions: Effective risk communication to support the decisions made by cancer survivors with respect to cancer screening is warranted. Implications for Practice: Study results provide foundational knowledge about the nature of second cancer risk that may be used to develop and refine standards for survivorship care including how second cancer risk can be best managed. 5. The Research Problem: The research problem is to determine how cancer survivors define and interpret second cancer risk (488). The question objectives a re clearly identified: to understand the risk of second cancer and be able to communicate that risk to a cancer survivor in an effective manner. The rationale for selecting the significance of the problem is clearly identified. According to the study, there is a lack of information regarding cancer risk among cancer survivors. Performing a study that analyzes this risk helps cancer survivors understand their risk of reoccurrence better. While no independent or dependent variables were identified, the study was carefully outlined by the author to include sample size, age range, and data collection methods. Operational definitions of terms were provided for a clear understanding of the study. A person-centered, open-ended interviewing approach was used when the participants were interviewed (489). 6. Review of Literature: Review of the literature is not relevant to the study, because there have been no conclusive studies in the past involving cancer survivors and their risk. The relat ionship of the problem to previous research is clear. The authors use statistics about the possibility of reoccurrence to provide a baseline for their own research. Primary sources are used, since the authors cited 19 other sources when writing their article. Secondary sources are not used, only primary sources. The range of years for the review of the literature is from 1999 to 2010. The authors clearly identify what is known and not known about the phenomenon of interest, and use that information as a baseline for th

Hunting should be legal Essay Example for Free

Hunting should be legal Essay The subject of keeping hunting legal is a controversial topic. I believe that hunting should be legal. If not, many animals would die because of overpopulation. A substantial amount of our food comes from hunting animals. Many years ago, some people used hunting to survive because they couldnt buy a lot of their food. Another question is that isnt fishing the same thing as hunting so should they stop fishing if they stop hunting? Some people feel disheartened over it. Also people entreat their Congressmen to keep hunting legal; still others are uncertain whether it should be legal or not. Ultimately, I think that it should be legal if not there would be a dominate amount of animals. Here are seven reasons why hunting should to be legal in every state. There is overpopulation with many animals. One season without hunting could be fickle to the population of animals. Many of these animals will die in winter by illnesses, starvation, etc. if they are not killed during the hunting season. If hunting were illegal, the animal population would grow larger and out of control. The population of animals would grow, but the amount of food would decrease. The animals would slowly die of a grim, inhumane death of starvation. It is a proven fact that a link exists between hunting and flu cases. The more hunting that occurs in a certain area, the fewer flu cases there are in that area. Scientists are not quite sure why this trend happens, but they cannot deny the findings. One reason might be ticks might carry the flu virus. If there are fewer animals for the ticks to infest, there are fewer ticks to carry the virus. The overpopulation of animals like bears and mountain lions has resulted in attacks against people. If the population of predator animals is controlled, then the more food there will be for these animals, and they wont attack people when searching for food. Farm animals and rural pets are killed by wild animals because there is not enough food to go around. As stated in reason three, the animals will have more food, if there are a smaller number of them. Commercial farms have lost crops because of wild animals. So actuality, to stop hunting would only hurt the economy. As the herd of grazing animals gets larger, the animals seek food where they can find it. They will eat the farmers crops for food. Sometimes, they eradicate acres of crops. There are many cases where animals have actually broken into peoples homes and caused a considerable amount of damage while looking for food. Since the animals cant find food in their own habitat, they move into developed areas searching for food. Many auto accidents are cause by wild animals. Drivers either hit the animal or swerve to miss them and get injured or even killed. Pennsylvania leads the list of the highest number of auto accidents involving deer. State Farm estimates that 1. 5 million vehicles collide with deer every year, resulting in 150 motorists deaths and $1. 1 billion in vehicle damages. From www. unsolvedmysteries. com/usm401731. html www. medicalecology. org/diseases/lyme/lyme_disease. html http://money. cnn. com/2005/11/04/news/newsmakers/deer/.

Privity of Contract Reform

Privity of Contract Reform It is important to emphasise that, while our proposed reforms will give some third parties the right to enforce contracts, there will remain many contracts where a third party stands to benefit and yet will not have a right of enforceability In 1996, the Law Commission published Privity of Contract: Contract for the Benefit of Third Parties. The proposals set out in this report were later legislated on the basis of, in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The aim of this legislation was fundamentally to alter the law in relation to the concept of privity of contract, in order to grant third parties who were not parties to the original contract certain rights. The doctrine of privity of contract will be considered, and the effect on this of the C(RTP)A will be analysed. Finally, some consideration will be given to the question of whether the legislation has gone far enough in reforming the law of privity. It has historically been a fundamental and central principle of contract law in England and Wales that only the actual parties to a contract can have either contractual rights or duties conferred upon them. This was established at common law in the case of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861). The doctrine was confirmed in the early twentieth century in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd (1915). It is important at the outset to distinguish the doctrine of privity of contract from the possibility of a third party enforcing a collateral contract. These are quite distinct scenarios. Under the first (historically), the third party had no right to claim rights, nor to be held liable for the performance of contractual duties. In the second scenario, as was established at common law in the case of Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd (1951), an actual contract might be found to exist between the third party and one of the parties to the contract. It is the former of the two situations with which the C(RTP)A 1999 is concerned. The two interests (as defined by McKendrick) which a third party can have in a contract to which he is not a party are both whether or not he can acquire rights under that contract, and whether or not the contract in question can impose any liabilities or obligations on him.[1] The most significant impact on this area was that of the C(RTP)A, which Trietel describes as ‘the most significant doctrinal development in English contract law in the twentieth century.’[2] What, then, is the purpose of privity of contract? It is, rather obviously, to do with the perceived injustice of imposing rights or obligations as between two parties who have had no dealing, at least no contractual dealing. It is clear that if X and Y enter a contractually binding agreement, Y has not made any agreement with Z, and therefore there is no rationale for entitling Z to take enforcement action against Y. The justification for the doctrine flows from the fact that contractual obligations, unlike tortious ones, are voluntary.[3] As Ibbetson states, the ‘rule that a third party could not enforce rights arising under a contract has been a feature of English law since at least the thirteenth century.’[4] The distinction between the acquisition of third party rights and obligations in contracts and other exceptions to privity of contract has already been mentioned. These exceptions can be expanded beyond collateral contracts (as seen in Shanklin Pier v Detel Prod ucts Ltd (1951)), to include a trust of a contractual right, whereby a ‘right may be transferred by way of property, as, for example, under a trust’[5]; the assignment of contractual rights to a third party (as in, for example, Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1994)); in cases of agency, where the agent is acting on his principal’s behalf, with the full authority of that principle, and concludes a contract (following Wakefield v Duckworth (1915), where the agent was operating within his authority, he ‘drops out of the picture and the contract is between the principal and the other contracting party); and cases where a claimant who is a third party suffers loss because of the negligent performance of the contract by a contracting party, as in the classic case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The doctrine of privity, then, was a foundational principle of English contract law until the advent of the Law Commission’s report in 1996. The opening quotation, taken from that report, explicitly seeks to limit the implications of the reforms that would later find their way into the C(RTP)A 1999, and the consideration above of the centrality of the doctrine of privity to contract law generally, shows why these limitations were considered necessary. What is the impact on this doctrine of the C(RTP)A, and does this do enough to reform the law on privity? The C(RTP)A states that ‘subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if the contract expressly provides that he may †¦ or the term purports to confer a benefit on him.’ Furthermore, ‘the third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, of a member of a class or as answering to a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.’[6] There are, then, two separate tests for enforceability. The first test is described by Burrows as the ‘simplest’, and so it is; it is a simple question of fact whether the contract expresses the third party may enforce a term of it.[7] An example of this explicit authorisation of the third party to enforce a term of the contract is where the contract states ‘X [the third party] shall have the right to enforce the following terms of the contract†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ The pro vision under this section is less restrictive than it might be because of the implications of section 1(3) which complements it, stating that the third party does not need to be named; it is sufficient for the third party to be the member of an identified class. The second test of enforceability under the Act is, again in the words of Burrows, is concerned with the ‘implied’ conferral of rights on third parties (as opposed to the express conferral discussed above).[8] The reasoning behind including this second test for enforceability can be broken down into 3 key areas. The first concerns the issue of implied rights in contracts, brought into the contract by implied terms. It is considered that to limit third party rights is akin to restricting implied terms. In other words, the parties’ intentions are not always their express intentions. The same can apply to third parties. The second area of justification for implied third party rights revolves around the uselessness of a reform confined to an express conferral of rights, unless the contracting parties included some ‘magic formula’ in the agreement so as to fall within the scope of the first test.[9] Cases where third parties would be unaffected by the C(RT P)A 1999 if the reform was confined to expressly mentioned third parties include Beswick v Beswick (1968), in which A contracted with B to pay money to C; and Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bro (1988), in which liability insurance was taken out to protect third parties to the contract. Finally, the implied conferral of rights on third parties has been justified by the fact that the aforementioned ‘magic formula’ will only be used in informed, well drafted contracts, which many will not be, particularly in the consumer sphere where good legal advice is not affordable. Do these two tests reflect the spirit of the opening quotation? It can certainly be seen how these two tests of enforceability have altered the doctrine of privity substantially, and in particular the second test of enforceability relating to implied third party rights. The Law Commission’s statement, however, suggests a balance, between maintaining privity for many contracts, and allowing third party rights in others. This balance can be seen to be aimed for by the existence of a rebuttable presumption of intention inherent in the second test of enforceability. This rebuttable presumption attains a further balance, between a sufficient degree of certainty between contracting parties, and sufficient flexibility. This flexibility was required in order for the C(RTP)A 1999 to apply to the potentially huge range of contracts for which it was intended. The presumption is set up by asking the question ‘when are the parties likely to have intended to confer a right on a third party to confer a term?’ If the answer is ‘where the term purports to confer a benefit on the expressly identified third party’, then the presumption is raised.[10] This, of course, can be rebutted by the ordinary contractual interpretation of an indication that the parties did not intend this. The balance can be seen to have been aimed for, at least, in the two tests of enforceability in the C(RTP)A 1999. An illustration of how the tests would be applied to decided cases is offered by Trietel, who identifies the case of Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975) as falling within the scope of the second test under section 1(1)(b). He observes that ‘if the person making the booking [for a holiday on behalf of a third party] supplied the names of the other members of the family when the contract was made, those other members would probably acquire rights under subsection 1(1).; but no such rights are likely to be acquired if a person simply rented a holiday cottage without giving any information as to the number or names of the persons with whom he proposed to share the accommodation.’[11] This, then, can be seen to be a limitation to the effect of the reform legislation. It is suggested by McKendrick that section 1 simply gives the contracting parties an incentive to make their intention clear, which, again, returns to the issue mentioned above about the need for well-drafted contr acts.[12] The C(RTP)A 1999 is a highly significant piece of reform legislation, which fundamentally alters a central doctrine of English contract law. It can be seen to represent the superiority of the doctrine of freedom of contract over that of privity of contract. The significance of the Act is that while it maintains the previous exceptions to privity of contract, contracting parties will probably make increasing use of the Act rather than these, as a matter of certainty. The effect of the Act is somewhat limited, however, by the continuing requirement of clarity in the construction of the contract, whereby a presumption of an intention to confer rights on a third party can be rebutted. The effect of this, however, is simply to encourage a clarity of intention on the part of the contracting parties. BIBLIOGRAPHY Statutes Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 Cases Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] 1 WLR 1468 Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85 Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd [1951] 2 All ER 471 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bro (1988) 165 CLR 107 Tweddle v Atkinson [1861 – 1873] All ER Rep 369 Wakefield v Duckworth [1915] 1 KB 218 Secondary sources Burrows, A. (2000) ‘The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act and its Implications for Commercial Contracts (LMCLQ 540) Ibbetson, D. (1999) A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford: OUP) Law Commission (1996) Privity of Contract: Contract for the Benefit of Third Parties (Law Comm 242) McKendrick, E. (2003) Contract Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP) Smith, S.A. (1997) ‘Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: In Defence of the Third-Party Rule’, 7 OJLS 643 Trietel, G.H. (1999) The Law of Contract, 10th Edition (London: Sweet Maxwell) Trietel, G.H. (2002) Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law (Oxford: OUP) Footnotes [1] McKendrick, E. (2003) Contract Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP), p1140 [2] Trietel, P. (2002) Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law (Oxford: OUP), p47 [3] See Smith, S.A. (1997) ‘Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: In Defence of the Third-Party Rule’, 7 OJLS 643, p645 [4] Ibbetson, D. (1999) A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford: OUP), p241 [5] Per Viscount Haldane in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Lt v Selfridge and Co Ltd (1915) [6] C(RTP)A 1999, ss1(1)(a),1(1)(b) and 1(3) [7] Burrows, A. (2000) ‘The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act and its Implications for Commercial Contracts (LMCLQ 540), p542 [8] Ibid [9] Ibid [10] Ibid, p543 [11] Trietel, G.H. (1999) The Law of Contract, 10th Edition (London: Sweet Maxwell), p603 [12] McKendrick (2003), p1212

Truman Doctrine :: essays research papers

The Truman Doctrine In order to contain Communism, President Harry S. Truman issued the Truman Doctrine in 1947, which provided aid to Greece and Turkey. The United States gave aid to those countries, specifically, because it felt they were most threatened by Communism during the time of the Cold War (Ferrell, pg.105). Communism is an economic system in which a single party controls the means of production with the aim of establishing a classless society (Encarta). The period after World War II, up until the year 1990, when The Cold War ended, was controlled by two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was led by President Harry S. Truman, who was thrown into the presidency by the unexpected death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Soviet Union was led by Joseph Stalin (McCullough, pg. 371). Each expressed different views on politics, economics and human rights. A number of events occurred which led the United States and the Soviet Union to engage in what is now known as the Cold War. The five areas of conflict were with Poland, Germany, atomic secrets, Eastern Europe, and economic rebuilding of Western Europe. The Cold War was not a war in the typical sense of the word. There were no shots fired, but rather it was a war with words. In some ways this could be considered worse than a real war because that type causes a lot more fear over what could occur at any moment and weather the threats were real or not. Those countries that sided with the United States, which were mostly Western European nations, were known as the free world. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, occupied the Eastern European nations which came to be known as the Communist Bloc (Barrons). During this time, President Harry S. Truman wanted to contain Communism before it spread world-wide. He felt that this was the crucial point and Truman responded by issuing the Truman Doctrine in 1947. Truman feared that third world countries would accept Communism. Communism 2 sounded tempting to these countries because it would equalize everyone and it may even provide those countries with a stable government (Ferrell, pg. 105). The main objective of the Truman Doctrine was to support Turkey and Greece because the United States government felt they were most threatened by Communism during the Cold War. The United States did not want Communism to spread, in fear that it would form in the United States (Encarta). The United States wanted to show the Soviet Union that they weren’t the world power and that the Soviets could not force Communism on other countries, especially weak, smaller countries. The Soviet Union thought they were the most

Communication as a Means of Stability Essay -- Essays Papers

Communication as a Means of Stability As demonstrated throughout various Native American texts, communication tends to be the Native’s greatest challenge in that they are unable to develop successful relationships with the outside world. Ultimately, broken treaties have become the unfortunate model for miscommunication between the European Americans and the Natives. Granted the white culture and the Natives share very few of the same beliefs or traditions, neither culture has yet to successfully compromise and broken through the barrier that so obviously separates them. Therefore it remains crucial that these very different cultures develop a good enough rapport with one another that would allow either culture the freedom to practice and express their beliefs non offensively, and prevent future communication from being null. From these Native novels, in particular Louis Owen’s Bone Game and Henry Gordon’s The Light People, we learn that communication and compromise are key to the success between these cultures, and lack of it will result in feud and confusion. The plot unfolds in Bone Game as a Native American professor Alex Yazzie unleashes a large cultural discrepancy between Natives and the white people as he skins a deer at his Santa Cruz residence for faculty housing. Since this act is atypical and shunned by the white community by which Alex is surrounded, tensions rise as his actions are perceived as barbaric. It is Cole, the story’s protagonist and a fellow Native, whom the university calls upon to mediate and resolve this disturbing â€Å"Indian Emergency† (Owens 23). Contrary to the school’s understanding and the laws that govern the county, this native is simply partaking in traditional Indian practices and u... ...ion aspect of it, but more importantly the â€Å"potential† it had as a future tourist location (Henry 101). According to Webster’s Dictionary, an agreement is defined as an arrangement made by negotiation between two parties. The word negotiation infers somewhat of a compromise or acceptance through successful communication by both parties. Yet through historical events, especially those pertaining to Native American’s, society has developed an understanding that language tends to often be dishonest. As Owens puts it, â€Å"The realization that words can say what they don’t mean and mean what they don’t say†¦[indicates] to an Indian [that] every sentence in English may be a broken treaty† (Owens 43). Works Cited Henry, Gordon Jr. The Light People. University of Oklahoma Press: Oklahoma, 1994. Owens, Louis. Bone Game. University of Oklahoma Press: Oklahoma, 1994.

EPA’s Policy of Superfund Sites Redevelopment into Recreational Facilit

EPA’s Policy of Superfund Sites Redevelopment into Recreational Facilities: The Success of Chisman Creek Introduction Superfund sites are located all across the United States and its territories. These sites have been deemed the worst of the worst in terms of environmental damage; they pose a threat to human health and the environment, prior to their remediation. Superfund sites are usually a result of several years of contamination; however, there are some instances when they are one-time accidents. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in charge of Superfund, which is the common term for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the enforcement of this law in the United States. Superfund was passed in 1980 to establish enforcement surrounding contamination sites in the U.S. and their cleanup. EPA has set up several initiatives and policies that deal with the remediation and redevelopment of these sites. EPA focuses their remediation policies on turning these sites back into productive and useful areas for the community, whether that reuse i s residential, commercial, industrial, or recreational use. Chisman Creek Superfund Site in Virginia was chosen as a site that could be successfully remediated into a recreational facility and serve as an example for other site remediation policy makers. The process by which this contaminated old landfill was redeveloped into a phenomenal recreational facility is an example of EPA successfully pulling together several issues and actors to achieve their agenda. Issues Superfund sites could have many different contaminations and remediation characteristics. The characterization of the site should strongly correlate with... ...ncy and Remedial Responses, Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites, OSWER 9375.3-05P, September 1999. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Responses, Returning Superfund Sites To Productive Use, OSWER 9378.0-16FS, March 1999. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Responses, Chisman Creek, York County, Virginia – Technical Appendix, OSWER 9378.0-16FS, March 1999. WWW.EPA.GOV/oerrpage/superfund/programs/recycle/benefits.htm WWW.EPA.GOV/oerrpage/superfund/programs/recycle/bensum.htm WWW.EPA.GOV/oerrpage/superfund/programs/recycle/recycle.htm WWW.EPA.GOV/oerrpage/superfund/programs/recycle/list170.htm Colvin, George H., "RCRA Cleanup Reforms", Environmental Protection, February 2000. Bolitzer, B and N. R. Netusil, " The Impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon", Journal of Environmental Management, 59, 185-193, 2000.

Declaration of Independence vs. Gettysburg Address Essay

The Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address are glimpses into America’s history. They were written in two different time periods: America’s first years in 1776 and the Civil War in the 1800’s. Despite their time gap, they are similar because they both explain to the reader what is going on during their time period. However, the country was going through different events and so these two documents are diverse as well. Both The Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address were written during times of turmoil and change for the country. Both occurred during a time of war in which America was fighting for liberty and freedoms. During the Revolutionary War, the United States was trying to become â€Å"a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal†. It was battling for independence and the right to govern them in a way that would actually benefit the country and its people. So in 1776 when The Declaration of Independence was written, the country fought for freedom for themselves. During the Civil War, the country was divided in two, one half of the country fighting against the other half. They were independent as a country, but this time they were fighting for freedom for others—the African-American slaves. In a way though, America was fighting for equality both times. The first was equal treatment for the British citizens and American colonists. The second time, the country was fighting for equal treatment for all men, no matter what skin color. Both these eras were a time of testing for the United States. The Revolutionary War period determined whether the states would actually be able to achieve independence. The Civil War was a test to see if America would be able to keep that independence. President Abraham Lincoln spoke about this in his Gettysburg Address: â€Å"we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure†. These two documents are similar because they are both written about a time of battle which tested America’s strength. The Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address are different for several reasons. For one, The Declaration of Independence is a statement while the Gettysburg Address was a speech. The authors were also targeting different audiences. The Declaration of Independence was written mostly for themselves, but also for the British government. The Declaration stated the sentiments of the thirteen colonies and â€Å"the causes which impel them to the separation†. This clarified where the people stood in regards to their independence. This was for the benefit and organization of the country, but also for the British to know that the Americans were not giving up on independence. The Gettysburg Address was a speech given by President Abraham Lincoln to the people of America. The Civil War was not an international conflict, but rather one inside the nation. The speech was aimed for encouraging and touching the hearts of the American people. Lincoln wanted them to not give up on the cause they were fighting for, but â€Å"to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us†. In the Gettysburg Address, the president was appealing to the people’s emotions in order to boost their war effort. This is another difference it has with The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence appealed to the British government about rights that the people ought to have. The tone of the Gettysburg Address is more personal since Lincoln’s goal was to encourage the people. Lincoln achieves a personal tone by speaking about the brave men who fought in the recent battle. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, was written as a political document with a formal tone. It lists the main reasons why the people were demanding independence, which were mostly due to Great Britain’s offenses against the colonies. The Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address are very distinct because they were appealing to different audiences and written in different tones. The Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address have several similarities and differences. Although they were written during different time periods, they both fight for liberty, freedom, and equality. However, the two documents, one a statement and the other a letter, were targeted at different audiences. This results in differing tones. One thing similar, both documents were written with a courage and passion for the goal it was fighting for.