Examples and illustrations rarely prove a point by themselves, but when used in combination with other forms of evidence they flesh out an argument and bring it to life. Because examples often are concrete and sometimes vivid, they can reach readers in ways that statistics and abstract ideas cannot.

Readers are more likely to understand and support an argument when it is put in terms of an actual example, especially one involving people acting in familiar contexts.

Public officials may take advantage of the practice of eminent domain, which allows the state to seize private property without the owner’s consent if doing so serves public need. A recent case in Wilmington, Delaware, challenges this practice. Many residents in the state’s largest city favor revitalizing the city’s waterfront property for public enjoyment. But is it right to displace more than a dozen longtime Wilmington residents so that someone can build a high-end restaurant?

In his paper arguing that online news provides opportunities for readers that print news does not, student writer Sam Jacobs describes how regular citizens using their cell phones and laptops helped save lives during Hurricane Katrina by sending important updates to the rest of the world.

Citizen reporting made a difference in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Armed with cell phones and laptops, regular citizens relayed critical news updates in a rapidly developing crisis, often before traditional journalists were even on the scene. In 2006, the enormous contributions of citizen journalists were recognized when the New Orleans Times-Picayune received the Pulitzer Prize in public service for its online coverage—largely citizen-generated—of Hurricane Katrina. In recognizing the paper’s “meritorious public service,” the Pulitzer Prize board credited the newspaper’s blog for “heroic, multi-faceted coverage of [the storm] and its aftermath” (“2006 Pulitzer”). Writing for the Online Journalism Review, Mark Glaser emphasizes the role that blog updates played in saving storm victims’ lives. Further, he calls the Times-Picayune’s partnership with citizen journalists a “watershed for online journalism.”

In a paper arguing that any athlete who uses gene therapy should be banned from athletic competition, student writer Jamal Hammond gives a thought-provoking example of how running with genetically modified limbs is no different from riding a motorcycle in a footrace.

If we let athletes alter their bodies through biotechnology, we might as well dispense with the human element altogether. Instead of watching the 100-meter dash to see who the fastest runner in the world is, we might just as well watch the sprinters mount motorcycles and race across the finish line. The absurdity of such an example, however, points to the damage that we will do to sports if we allow these therapies. Thomas Murray, chair of the ethics advisory panel for the World Anti-Doping Agency, says he hopes, not too optimistically, for an “alternative future . . . where we still find meaning in great performances as an alchemy of two factors, natural talents . . . and virtues” (qtd. in Jenkins D11).