There is lots of evidence that Langley uses in his piece on skateboarding to convince people how they have been treated unfairly and what should be done to rectify the situation. First he tells a personal story to appeal to the reader. He explains the police as villains in the piece and uses it to show how laws are unclear and unfair. He generalizes that all skateboards suffer from this issue by naming other cities where it is the case. He then explains how they have been wronged and given a false stereotype. Finally he shows how places have tried to help, but then proves that their efforts were half-hearted and ineffective. Michel Levin decides to take a different route but use some of the same pieces of evidence to prove his point. He begins with a generalization and a hypothetical event. He then does something much like Langly when he tells stories that are moving to the reader. Levin’s piece is much different in that there is more factual evidence that is numerically based. Both of them try to justify themselves by showing how their experiences or beliefs affect the issue. Many of the pieces of evidence used in the piece are the same, but there are also many different pieces that are still effective in their own right.