Rhetorical Analysis: "Where Sweatshops are a Dream"
Blog post #5
"Where Sweatshops are a Dream" is an article by Nicholas D. Kristof that discusses how sweatshops are actually beneficial in places like Phnom Penh where jobs are scarce, and people dream of having a job in a sweatshop. He claims that there should be even more sweatshops to help employ those living in harsh conditions, or as Kristof describes it, a "Dante-like vision of hell", which is a figurative allusion to one of the most grotesque literary works in history. The author goes on further to describe the scene with pathos by saying that there are barefoot children running around trying to scavenge for plastic cups to sell, which are worth five cents a pound. A woman with a child living in a shack on this massive heap of garbage says that she'd much rather work in a sweatshop because at least it's air-conditioned, and she doesn't have to worry about her child getting run over by a garbage truck. Kristof paints a scary picture that shows just how bad these places really are, and in reality makes sweatshops pale in comparison to these conditions in Phnom Penh.
Kristof's audience is most likely Americans with the power to influence manufacturing companies overseas, such as Obama's cabinet, because he calls to action that there should be more sweatshops to provide more jobs for countries that have fallen into poverty. He recalls how well an area in southern China fared from more sweatshops; living standards improved greatly. The best way to improve tough working conditions is to promote manufacturing. The author goes on to refute the argument that "labor standards can improve wages and working conditions without greatly affecting the retail cost of goods" by saying "labor standards and living wages have a larger impact on production costs. Overall, Kristof achieves the compelling argument that sweatshops and manufacturing as a whole when in abundance can improve the standards of living in countries with poverty, thus making factory jobs many times better and safer than jobs scavenging in junk piles.
Kristof's audience is most likely Americans with the power to influence manufacturing companies overseas, such as Obama's cabinet, because he calls to action that there should be more sweatshops to provide more jobs for countries that have fallen into poverty. He recalls how well an area in southern China fared from more sweatshops; living standards improved greatly. The best way to improve tough working conditions is to promote manufacturing. The author goes on to refute the argument that "labor standards can improve wages and working conditions without greatly affecting the retail cost of goods" by saying "labor standards and living wages have a larger impact on production costs. Overall, Kristof achieves the compelling argument that sweatshops and manufacturing as a whole when in abundance can improve the standards of living in countries with poverty, thus making factory jobs many times better and safer than jobs scavenging in junk piles.
Not lengthy but effective. Keep it up!!!
ReplyDeleteoverall how you introduce your figurative language was effective. I would suggest you add more analysis to the post.
Delete3/4 ranking.