DQ Week 5

Ehrenreich begins her essay by giving examples of what you may find if you mug a janitor verses a banker. She also begins by telling us, the readers, what the trick is from stealing the poor and what other people might do. The problem she identifies is that people are robbing those aren't financially stable. She assumes her readers are people that can help her stop other people from stealing from the poor. Her purpose is to let people know what "millionaire employers", as she would call them, are doing to the poor. In order to accomplish this purpose, she appeals to logos. She uses logic reasoning, in my opinion, that what they're doing to the poor is wrong. She tells us how the poor is likely to get into trouble with the law because they are not financially stabled. She also appeals to pathos because she is in favor with the poor and wants to help them out. I believe she feels bad that the poor can't really defend themselves because they have no money to get themselves out of situations. In her essay, Ehrenreich doesn't addresses the main argument against her thesis. She's is all for helping the poor. Finally she concludes by making the point that before we actually do something for the poor we need to actually stop doing what we are doing to them.