using this argument analysis text instead whilst keeping same tone and language choice make into a comparitive argument analysis comparing the two texts, "The decision by the Presbyterian Church to refuse to waive their right to allow homosexual students to hold and represent leadership roles has caused controversy. The church states that their reasoning behind this decision is due to the LGBT+ community "going against Christian values." This has led Daniel Cash, Melbourne Grammar School's Captain, to speak out against the topic in an attempt to persuade and educate the Presbyterian Church to reevaluate their decision. Cash argues that the church's response doesn't represent the values the church is based on and that it goes against the principles of the church.

Cash, approaches the text belligerently whilst making use of formal language. Daniel Cash who is homosexual himself and therefore has a vested interest in the issue, and contests the church's statement by underscoring the Presbyterian church's action, stating, "Surely 'modeling Christian living' is not well exemplified in the practice of exclusion or discrimination?" The makes use of a rhetorical question is an attempt from Cash to position the readers to side with his contention whilst undermining the church's contention, highlighting the juxtaposition of values represented by 'Christ' and "The Presbyterian Church."

Daniel Cash implements landscape portrait of himself at the start of the article, Cash’s use of implementing the portrait literally, displays a smiling young adult in a religious space, possibly a church in the background. However, on a figurative level, the image humanizes Daniel Cash and positions the reader to empathize with him, further persuading to reject the opposing contention’s regards. The picture also directly rebuts the Presbyterian Church’s ideology of Cash being unfit to model “Christian Living” by showing a well groomed, formal and sophisticated leader as shown in the short description of the photo stating that the picture is in fact, Daniel Cash. This further **per**suades the reader to disregard the comment on the degrading comment on Cash’s eligibility of leadership that the church claims.

Robertson of Stanmore responded to Cash's article with a letter to the editor the day after it was published. Stanmore agitatedly contested the church's argument while praising Daniel Cash, exclaiming that if Jesus were to write a letter to the Australian Presbyterian Church, "He would probably tell them to read the opinion piece by Daniel Cash." This affirmation further positions the reader to side with Cash's views on the issue by publicly displaying support and declaring his prior experience with conservative beliefs in his childhood and the negative experience that he lived through. Displaying his experience with older ideologies assures the reader that the possibility of naivety due to age and lack of experience is moot, further persuading Cash's contention.

Robertson finalizes his letter with a graphic showcasing a group of black and white fish with a solitary rainbow fish missing from the school. Figuratively, The black and white fish is representing of the ‘normal’ heterosexual population whereas, the solitary rainbow fish represents the LGBTQI+ Community by making use of the rainbow color associated and represented with the community. The act of the rainbow fish isolating and alienating himself from the group showcases the common difficulty the LGBTQI+ community deals with whilst growing up in a disapproving environment. The use of displaying the act of this disconnection with the general public attempts to persuade the viewer through empathy for those in the LGBTQI+ community, as alienation and disinclining others is often viewed with negative connotation."