Barbara Ehrenreich begins her column by talking about the
difference between stealing from the wealthy and from the poor. The problems that she identifies are Lenders
with their interest rates also employers not honoring work done or the
government with tickets and fee’s. She
assumes her readers can relate or understand her arguments. Her purpose is to highlight things that she
feels are not a big deal but cause people to take the “waterslide to hell”. In order to accomplish this purpose she
mainly appeals to people that agree with her thinking, breaking the law is ok. She doesn’t appear to refute any of her
arguments. She concludes by making the
point that before we can “do something” for the poor, there are things we need
to stop doing to them. Overall the
argument Barbara makes is ineffective because she has no logic behind her
arguments, her primary basis is that breaking the law should be ok if it is
just a minor infraction. Her arguments could have been much more compelling if
she stuck with one problem she identified and presented logical evidence to
support her argument.
I agree with your opinion. She had no basis to back up what she was arguing. I feel it was very wrong and immoral for her to say that breaking the law should be okay for just a small crime. There is not much evidence or reason for her argument.
ReplyDeleteThe writers biggest mistake was assuming the audience can relate to the argument she applies. The writer needs more substantial evidence to back up her claims. I agree with Halle, when she says it is okay to break the law she looses all her credibility. She damages her credibility by making assumptions and then goes on to destroy it by neglecting to provide substantial evidence to support her claims. I also agree that she did not put logic behind her arguments which is something she should have done to gain the readers respect. All in all these problems could have been avoided if the writer had provided specific sources and done better research.
ReplyDelete