Here we have an explanatory, mildly argumentative thesis that enables the writer to express an opinion. We infer from the use of the word convincing that the writer will judge the various reasons for protecting the rights of AIDS patients; and, we can reasonably assume, the writer himself believes in protecting these rights. Note the contrast between this second thesis and the first one, where the writer committed himself to no involvement in the debate whatsoever. Still, the present thesis is not as ambitious as the third one, whose writer implicitly accepted the general argument for safeguarding rights (an acceptance he would need to justify) and then took the additional step of evaluating the merits of those arguments in relation to each other. (Recall that Anthony Jones's plan was the "most sensible.")
Gorsuch’s affinity with the views of his adviser Finnis on natural law, his approving citation of Scalia’s views on gay marriage, and his skepticism of the Court’s jurisprudence on the right to chose in matters of personal intimacy all suggest that he might vote to reverse the decision protecting same-sex marriage. Defenders of gay rights have reason to worry that he would roll back the clock on this important issue, and senators should use the upcoming confirmation hearings to find out from Gorsuch exactly where he stands.