Rajeev Ravisankar starts his essay, “Sweatshop Oppression,” by addressing the readers and making them feel equal to him. He says that the issues are low-cost consumerism and the consequent undervaluation of the significant human cost. Ravisankar presumes that his readers share the goal of “poor” college students to get as much as they can at the lowest prices. In this article, he aims to inform the audience about the unfortunate circumstances in which sweatshops often operate and provide solutions. He mostly employs ethos and pathos to achieve this goal, appealing to activists and academics concerned about the issue. Ravisankar specifically appeals to the ideals and emotions of the audience by exposing the businesses’ desire to maximize profits at any cost and outlining the horrifying workplace conditions at sweatshops. He also makes a pitch to companies, warning them about the dangers of sweatshops for their workers.
The primary objection to Ravisankar’s thesis that anti-sweatshop campaigners harm low-income families in undeveloped nations by causing businesses to leave certain places and raising unemployment rates is addressed in his article. He counters that corporations, not anti-sweatshop campaigners, are responsible for the low wages and shortage of employment possibilities in some regions. Finally, he draws attention to the fact that several groups work to remedy the issue, particularly by forcing colleges to partner with manufacturers that uphold labor rights. The reader is more aware of the sweatshop issue overall thanks to Ravisankar’s thesis, which also briefly discusses solutions.
Jerome Sieger especially addresses adolescents and young people in the article “Sweatshops are Good,” who are concerned about the negative effects of sweatshops on workers. He wants to demonstrate how important these industries are to the health of economies in low-income nations. They create employment possibilities and help society combat poverty and its negative effects. When claiming that anti-sweatshop campaigners lack creativity and empathy, Sieger used pathos. He also employs pathos when claiming that anti-sweatshop campaigners lack imagination and compassion.
Due to the clever word choice that captures the reader’s interest, Sieger’s arguments are compelling. For example, the author supports them with statements such as “a failure of imagination” and “as bad as sweatshops are, most alternatives are much worse” (125). Additionally, the audience believes the author because of the article’s focus on research and data to support the need for sweatshops. For example, statistics show that “Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore used sweatshop labor to raise incomes from 10 percent of American level to 40 percent.” The Author utilizes logos to highlight the study’s conclusions regarding the sweatshops’ beneficial effects on the employees’ pay (124). The essay presents a distinct viewpoint from the usual middle-class Americans about workshops with subpar working conditions.
Overall, Sieger’s article is effective because it communicates the opinion on the benefits of sweatshops and engages readers by challenging them to think differently about the problem. The essay’s rhetorical devices include juxtaposing the viewpoints of middle-class and lower-class individuals and outlining the role sweatshops play in eradicating poverty. In addition, the author explains the term “sweatshop” and points out the problem of a lack of manufacturing jobs in developing nations. Workshops support economies by producing incomes above the national average level and giving manufacturing employees stable employment adds value to his words. However, it may be viewed as a weakness if some claims—such as those about women’s empowerment—are not backed up by supporting data.
Work Cited
Sieger Rhetorical Analysis. Practical Argument. Exercise 4.2., pp. 124-125.