Atma does very nice job bringing in pathos and ethos arguments to the topic. Her evidence on discrimination on LGBT in the American military is credible and she uses the evidence as a way of justifying her claims. She uses ethos by implying the unethical actions the military as posed on these men and women who were trying to serve their country,”Any service member that wasn’t heterosexual were sent to psychiatric hospitals or to the military incarceration facilities”. She uses pathos tactics by bringing up the mental and physical trauma and depression that the homosexual military had to go with, “LGB veterans that served under such discriminatory policies had higher rates of depression, substance abuse, suicidality, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), compared to non-LGBT counterparts. (Ramirez et al.)”. She uses ere evidence well but does not pose strong arguments, it seems as though she is letting the evidence try to state her arguments and claims for her instead of letting the evidence be the support for her topic. Another thing she can improve on is she is leaning too much on ethos and not enough of pathos and logos, she can give more anecdotal evidence by LGBT military personnel and or further analyze the evidence that were logos based.