King Lear, is a play written by Shakespeare, any critic will attest to how carefully crafted this work of art was. However, many people say without hesitation that this play should be described as a tragedy, nothing more and nothing less. On the other hand, some critics believe that the ending of the play left readers with such strong emotions that there is a feeling of catharsis and therefore the play cannot be described as a tragedy. David Bevington shares the belief that King Lear should be classified as a tragedy. Specifically, he argues that the play's ending is why it can be described as a tragedy. An argument by Angel Bell argues exactly the opposite. Angel Bell thinks that King Lear as a whole has great catharsis. The ending explains precisely why the play cannot be considered a tragedy. The argument centers on whether or not readers experience a sense of relief once the play is finished. While there is no sense of relief, David Bevington is right to call the play a tragedy. But if the reader feels some sort of relief at the end of the play, Angel Bell proved that there was a sense of catharsis in the play. It can't be both. However, for these argumentative essays to be considered credible, the authors must follow a logical argument. Logical argumentation consists of four main points: relevance, acceptability, sufficiency and refutation. A credible argumentative essay must possess these four points. Overall, David Bevington and Angel Bell both provide compelling arguments, but Angel Bell provides the most convincing evidence proving that Shakespeare's King Lear does indeed have a sense of catharsis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay David Bevington provides a strong argument when it comes to describing the play as a tragedy. Bevington's argument consists largely of evidence that is very relevant to proving his point. First, Bevington draws a quote from the play from when Lear is furious with Goneril. The quote says: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth/To have an ungrateful child!” ". At first glance, this excerpt may not seem relevant to the conclusion he is trying to draw, but analyzing it proves that it is in fact an excellent piece of evidence. Bevington's analysis points out that Leer compares Goneril to a snake. This is a biblical reference to Satan in the Garden of Eden. This is relative evidence because this biblical reference indicates that it was a serpent that initiated the beginning of the fall of man. Bevington points this out because Shakespeare's character Leer says that Goneril is the reason he fell. This is important because Bevington shows Shakespeare's foreshadowing of the tragic fall at the end of the play, similar to the tragic fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Bevington not only uses relevant evidence, but he also uses acceptable evidence in his argumentative essay. Continuing the animal-based metaphors, Bevington uses another excerpt that Leer states once he realizes the damage Regan has caused. The excerpt states: “skin your wolf’s face.” Here Leer found himself with nothing and no one. It's clear that Leer is alone because he has sunk low enough to call his own daughter a wolf. Bevington uses this quote because it shows that Leer not only believes that his daughters have fallen into animal-like chaos, but also because it showsthat he himself has fallen to an animal-like level. This is an acceptable argument because the quote used by Bevington directly indicates an animal reference. No mature person could read this quote and think otherwise, which is why his argument cannot be disputed. David Bevington does his duty as a critic by providing relevant and acceptable evidence. David Bevington strives to solidify his argument for identifying King Lear as a king. tragedy, he is proven to use relevant and acceptable evidence, but will he also use sufficient and will it offer a chance to rebut? The next point that Bevington makes in his argumentative essay centers on a quote that takes place once Shakespeare's character, Albany, sides with Leer. Albany, also outraged at Goneril, calls him a serpent, "golden serpent" (5.3.86). Bevington uses this slide to Goneril to bring his previous two points together. Bevington points out another animal metaphor that proves that at this point in the play the characters have succumbed to an animal being. There are no more rules or guidelines, it's chaos. This quote once again emphasizes Bevington's point that the character of King Lear has fallen to the animal level. This quote also refers to the theme of “the fall” that Bevington mentioned in the previous paragraph. The reference to the serpent refers to Satan and refers to the beginning of the fall of man. Bevington concludes his argument with one of the most prescient quotes in the play. Bevington says that it is in this scene with "Cordelias, dead and limp body" that is the most tragic of all. This is the fall that has been predicted. “I know when one is dead and when one lives;/ She is dead like the earth.” Bevington ends his argument with this quote because of its disparity. It is not about hope or possibility, and that is why he considers the play to be a tragedy. Although David Bevington's argument thus far has been strong, he abruptly ends his essay here. Bevington's essay is missing a key element necessary for any sensible argument: a rebuttal. Bevington speaks of "Albany becoming more sympathetic to Lear's cause as time passes," but does not raise the possibility that this is a sign of hope. Overall, Bevington's argument was good because he used relevant, acceptable, and sufficient evidence, but lacking because there was no refuting evidence. Angel Bell believes that there is a sense of catharsis in King Lear, which means that the play cannot be classified as a tragedy. This is a relative argument, because if he is correct in his argument, how the piece is read and how it is classified in the future would change. Bell uses relative evidence to prove his point. Bell uses Edmund and Edgar as his first main argument. In King Lear, Edmund is an evil character, Edmund is the bastard son of Gloucester. He is jealous of Gloucester's legitimate son, Edgar. Edmund puts Edgar through a lot of pain and suffering because Gloucester was going to give all of its lands and wealth to Edgar. Edmund is clearly a villain in the play. However, Bell uses Edmund's death to help make his underlying point. Towards the end of the novel, Edmund is killed in a duel and Edgar regains what originally belonged to him, his father's land and wealth. Bell argues that because Edgar finally received his fortune, the reader gains a sense of catharsis. Edmund's death and Edgar's gain are just, and this proof reassures the reader. This is relevant evidence in a relevant argument. Bell also uses acceptable evidence for his argument. Bell emphasizes that according to,.