Sweatshops: Good or Bad?
Blog Post #5
Sweatshops are viewed as an oppressive work environment with inhumane procedures, but do they cause more good than harm? In the article, "Where Sweatshops Are a Dream," by Nicholas D. Kristof, he begins by providing an opposing view to Democrats and their plan to set up better labor standards. His main argument is that sweatshops are actually safe havens for the poor, and eliminating them would just make certain people's lives harder. Kristof assumes that his readers have good intentions, but thinks that they don't understand just how complex the issue of sweatshops are. Therefore, his purpose in this article is to open up people's minds on the complexity of this particular issue. In order to do this, Kristof appeals mainly to pathos, by providing a vivid image of a poor town in Cambodia, where people dream of working in sweatshops. In addition to this, he also appeals to logos, by analyzing why peoples lives become easier when they work in these sweatshops. Kristof does address the counter argument, by empathizing with those who have fears of sweatshops, but refutes this point by providing his own experience of living in East Asia and seeing first hand what good sweatshops can do. He concludes his argument by saying that Americans should try to promote trade with nations that use sweatshops, instead of discouraging it. Overall, while I don't entirely agree with his point, I believe Kristof did provide a good argument with logical points in it.
Sweatshops are viewed as an oppressive work environment with inhumane procedures, but do they cause more good than harm? In the article, "Where Sweatshops Are a Dream," by Nicholas D. Kristof, he begins by providing an opposing view to Democrats and their plan to set up better labor standards. His main argument is that sweatshops are actually safe havens for the poor, and eliminating them would just make certain people's lives harder. Kristof assumes that his readers have good intentions, but thinks that they don't understand just how complex the issue of sweatshops are. Therefore, his purpose in this article is to open up people's minds on the complexity of this particular issue. In order to do this, Kristof appeals mainly to pathos, by providing a vivid image of a poor town in Cambodia, where people dream of working in sweatshops. In addition to this, he also appeals to logos, by analyzing why peoples lives become easier when they work in these sweatshops. Kristof does address the counter argument, by empathizing with those who have fears of sweatshops, but refutes this point by providing his own experience of living in East Asia and seeing first hand what good sweatshops can do. He concludes his argument by saying that Americans should try to promote trade with nations that use sweatshops, instead of discouraging it. Overall, while I don't entirely agree with his point, I believe Kristof did provide a good argument with logical points in it.
i rate a 3. there are few grammatical errors and the majority of parts are there.
ReplyDelete