The issue of sexual consent in regard to rape cases can often become a "he said, she said" type of situation. Especially on college campuses across the United States, formulating a clear-cut definition of consent has gained more importance, as reporter Jake New explains in his 2014 article "The 'Yes' Means 'Yes' World". For the past twenty years, "No means No" has been the slogan associated with the policy that explicitly saying "no" is essential for an individual to not grant consent during a sexual encounter. However, the phrase has been recently revised and become "Yes means Yes", meaning that an individual must say "yes" and confirm consent to his or her partner throughout a sexual encounter. In his article titled "The 'Yes Means Yes' World", reporter Jake New proposes that "Yes means Yes" is far more effective in defining consent, and informs the reader predominantly through an appeal to logos by including the perspectives of multiple credible sources to produce evidence. New secondarily appeals to pathos and ethos in providing credible sources with first-hand experience in order to support the dominant claim of logos. 

Structurally, New's article represents the transition from "No means No" to "Yes means Yes" legislation. It is divided into three distinct sections, each with a particular purpose. The first section introduces the idea of affirmative consent, the second explains the transition from "No means No" to "Yes means Yes", and the third critiques an extremist application of affirmative consent (New, 430-34). This division of the article represents the claim, the bridge between the claim and counterargument, and the counterargument. The "Yes Means Yes" (also known as affirmative consent) policy that began in California is gaining popularity on college campuses throughout the United States. Supporters of affirmative consent, such as Democratic California governor Jerry Brown, believe that consent has to be explicitly clear to all people involved in a sexual encounter. Brown signed legislation in September 2014 that states consent to be " ... an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity" (New 430). The inclusion of this portion of text from the affirmative consent bill provides a foundation for the author's argument; it increases New's credibility by showing that he has clear knowledge of the law through research. The knowledge and evidence presented to summarize the law builds trust in the audience. 

Further into the article, it is addressed that intoxication from drugs or alcohol does not allow someone express consent according to the California model as well. (New 431). Through presenting this information near the beginning of his article, New's propositional policy claim becomes clear- college campuses should follow the model set forth by California and adopt the policy of affirmative consent in order to avoid confusion over the granting of consent. The counterargument presented is that affirmative consent can become unreasonable if taken to the extreme, as represented by Antioch College's affirmative consent policy that requires individuals to ask permission for every step during a sexual experience (New 432). Another counterargument that New presents briefly is from law professor John Banzhaf who believes that the problem of consent is not due to confusion over the definition, but instead to the perpetrator choosing to not respect someone telling them "no" (New 434). The presentation of counterarguments further reaffirms the reader of the wide range of research New underwent in order to write his article. With the presentation of an argument, a counterargument is essential in order to determine the strength of the overall argument. The article still is able to convince the reader of the effectiveness of affirmative consent in despite of its potential extremist application, 

Another point of Governor Brown's affirmative consent is that "If the student is incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol, there is no consent" (New, 430). A syllogism can be derived based off of this premise of intoxication thorough deductive reasoning (Bauknight and Meyer, 97). The major premise is that intoxication limits mental capacity and healthy decision making. The minor premise that sexual assault victims are often intoxicated (not necessarily always by his or her own doing) follows, leading to the conclusion that since sexual assault victims are often intoxicated, he or she cannot make an informed decision to allow consent in those cases. 

Furthermore, the propositional claim is supported by several credible sources, including: California governor Jerry Brown, American Council of Education member Ada Meloy, but perhaps most importantly Laura Dunn. Dunn is the executive director of SurvJustice, an organization that provides resources to victims of sexual violence on college campuses, and also a former victim of sexual assault that did not get justice in court (CBS News). However, New does not present any of Dunn's credibility in detail; she is simply introduced as "Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice" (New 431). In reference to sexual perpetrators and the "No means No" policy, Dunn states " ...  the traditional definition is telling them that it's O.K. to do this until the victim says 'no.' That's not really a helpful definition for them either because it can really be too late at that point. With affirmative consent, it's simple. Consent is Consent" (New 431). This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in relation to the author's claim. For a reader that is aware of Dunn's background, this quote can appeal to ethos and pathos as well as logos. Viewing Dunn as a former victim who lacks justice but has overcome her experiences in order to help others is compelling, and gives her immense credibility in discussing the topic matter. This can bring out emotions of sympathy and admiration. However, the author still discusses the subject matter in a serious tone in despite of Dunn's credentials. The average reader likely does not possess knowledge of Dunn on first read, so the appeal to pathos in that case is unlikely to occur.  

There is room for improvement in New's appeals to ethos throughout the article. The only background of New presented before the article is that he is a reporter, which does not provide extrinsic ethos. Based off of that, he is not necessarily an expert in the field of sexual policy but since he is reporting on the issues surrounding consent in an article, it is assumed that he will be presenting evidence he gathered through interviewing multiple sources, since that is generally the process a reporter follows.  Since each source that New includes has high credentials that qualify them to speak on the topic, he does create intrinsic ethos for himself. A majority of the evidence to support 'Yes means Yes" and also to argue against its effectiveness is quoted from another source or summarized research. Based off of reading, New seems to be well educated on the topic of sexual consent policies on college campuses. The blunder he makes with not including more information about Laura Dunn does not necessarily weaken his argument, but definitely provides room for strengthening it. 

After reading his article, once can conclude that "Yes means Yes" is indeed a more effective way to define consent. By appealing to logos, New is able to inform the reader by secondarily appealing to the use of pathos and ethos in references to the sources consulted for research. The presence of sufficient evidence by New throughout his article allows for successful persuasion that "No means No" is no longer effective for victims of sexual assault. "Yes means Yes" and the affirmative consent revolution seems to be a realistic plan of action for college campuses in order to prevent the amount of unjustified victims of rape. 

