This article was written for the Star Tribune 5/4 by Abby Simones and Larry Oakes. I thought that this was an important current events, with a lot of coverage given. I found that the article title was even an argument. It is stating that Amy Senser did in fact know she hit the man, and then adds jury finds at the end. This is there to provide evidence that if they found her guilty they thought she knew she hit someone. I believe that this article is an argument that she is in fact guilty and the paper is supporting her conviction.
I think this sentence is very interesting, "When the jurors filed into the courtroom, anyone who looked into their faces could guess that Amy Senser was in trouble.' This is an arguement that the author's could tell what the outcome would be even before they read it, and in fact everyone should have been able to tell that she was guilty. I think this is an arguement because it is making the reader think that they should have known she was guilty even before the verdict came back. They write that, "The convictions Thursday brought to a close eight months of media scrutiny and public speculation over the degree to which Senser would be held accountable for Phanthavong's death." This implys that there should have been a degree that she would be held responsible, which means that she definitely was somewhat responsible.