1. Evaluate the episode of Law & Order that we watched in class in two ways: First, how realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes. (You don't have to do research to answer this question--simply consider it based on what you already know.)

The episode we viewed in class was not very realistic. Many things occurred in the episode that would never occur in real life. For example, the police would not secretly take a child to the hospital without parental consent. The police would also never put in danger a child going through emotional distress through a sting operation. The story line was not realistic. During the episode, coincidence after coincidence added up. This would not have happened in reality. The episode also had a skewed time frame. A real case and court trial would have taken much longer than what was portrayed on the episode.

2. How effective was it? (To answer this part of the question, you'll first have to identify a goal, again, based on what you know of it rather than research, then evaluate how well it achieves the goal.) Consider whether and to what extent the concessions to reality add or detract to the show's effectiveness.

The goal of this episode was to entertain the audience. This episode was successful in this goal. It appealed to the viewer’s pathos, making them feel sympathetic for the characters. It used an interesting story line filled with drama and suspense, to catch the viewer’s attention. Even though the viewer is entertained, they may take the episode as reality, which is not the case. If the show were made more realistic, it would detract from the show’s effectiveness. To make the show more accurate, specific parts of the legal process would have to be included. They are not as interesting as some of the others, and this is why they are omitted or abbreviated in the show.