Use this and a logical tone to force the audience's trust. It is a cheap tactic to “establish ethics”. All we know about King is that he writes in the horror/thriller genre, what we don't see is King explaining where his information comes from. He does not share where his research comes from or whether any studies have been conducted on this particular topic. King's only example of how this applies to real life includes Jack the Ripper, the Cleveland Torso Killer, and a ten-year-old boy. His examples are scant, and we have no concrete evidence that they succumbed because they failed to release their violent and murderous tendencies through socially accepted outlets. We have no way to test his credibility and therefore his essay becomes ineffective and resembles more of a joke than a serious academic argumentative essay. The anecdote relating to the ten-year-old girl is equally questionable as the child in question is an unknown subject. King introduces the joke without any reference to who the child was or in what context the joke came about. For all the audience knows, the child could have been open to very vulgar materials that would have naturally corrupted his mind, or that the child was forced to tell the joke to Stephen King because of King's reputation. Another aspect that leads me to the conclusion that King's essay is ineffective is that he never consulted the critic. The only quote shared by King