How is Thomas’s diction different from O’Connell’s? What effect could this diction

This question is incomplete, here´s the complete question.

Read:

- New Michigan Graduation Requirements  Shortchange Many Students , by Nick Thomas

- Time to raise the bar in high schools, by Jack O’Connell

How is Thomas’s diction different from O’Connell’s? What effect could this diction have on each writer’s ability to engage and convince readers?

Besides having opposing opinions on the matter, Thomas and O’Connell´s editorials have different styles when it comes to diction.

Explanation:

O’Connell uses formal and academic words, a serious tone, statistics, and research references to support his position, all of which will probably be more engaging for readers from academic backgrounds and people dedicated to institutional matters.

On the other hand, Thomas´ editorial is not as formal, with a more approachable vocabulary. Furthermore, the tone is rather emotional, as it appeals to the reader´s personal experience from the beginning, and supports his ideas appealing to personal references such as "I’m concerned that", and what "students deserve". This Kind of diction will probably be more engaging for readers of different backgrounds and socioeconomic situations, including, for example, the students and their parents.

(not gonna give full answer, due to my shadow banning issue)

The dark side of human nature is exemplified through the character of Montresor and his victim, Fortunato. Montresor is a manipulative and vengeful person. These characteristics lead to the death of Fortunato, a man who has wronged him.