In the essay “Sweatshop Oppression,” Rajeev Ravisankar begins by appealing to the audience and making the readers feel equal to him. The problem he identifies is low-cost-driven consumerism and the associated devaluation of the high human cost. Ravisankar assumes his readers relate to “poor” college students’ desire to buy as much as possible at the lowest prices. His purpose in this essay is to educate the readers on the unacceptable conditions under which sweatshops usually operate and identify ways to address the issue. To accomplish this purpose, he appeals mainly to activists and students concerned with the problem by using ethos and pathos. In particular, Ravisankar calls upon the audience’s values and emotions, highlighting the companies’ interest in increasing profits by any means and describing the abhorrent working conditions at sweatshops. He also appeals to companies drawing their attention to the sweatshop issues that are harmful to their employees.
In his essay, Ravisankar addresses the main argument against his thesis, the idea that anti-sweatshop activists affect the low-income households in the developing world as companies disappear at specific locations, creating higher unemployment rates. He refutes this argument by saying that not anti-sweatshop activists but companies are to blame for cheap labor and lack of job opportunities in certain areas. Finally, he concludes by making the point that several organizations address the problem, in particular, by making universities turn to factories respecting employee rights. Overall, the argument Ravisankar makes is effective because it raises the reader’s awareness of the sweatshop problem and overviews the ways of resolving it.
In the essay “Sweatshops are Good,” Jerome Sieger appeals primarily to students and young people concerned about sweatshops’ adverse impact on employees. He aims to prove his point that in low-income countries, such factories are critical to supporting economies. They generate job opportunities and allow society to alleviate poverty and its adverse consequences. Sieger uses pathos when stating that anti-sweatshop activists lack imagination and empathy and logos when discussing the study’s findings regarding sweatshops’ positive impact on the employees’ income. The essay offers an alternative perspective on workshops with poor working conditions, different from the viewpoint of an average middle-class American.
The rhetorical strategies used in the essay involve contrasting the perspectives of middle- and lower-class people and describing sweatshops’ contribution to combating poverty. Moreover, the author defines the concept of a sweatshop and identifies the issue of an insufficient number of factory jobs in developing countries. Sieger explains how workshops help economies by generating income above the national average and providing job stability for factory workers. Sieger’s arguments are strong due to the effective choice of words that appeal to the reader and draw their attention. For instance, the author writes “a failure of imagination,” “the best hope to escape crippling poverty,” and “as bad as sweatshops are, most alternatives are much worse.” Furthermore, the essays’ reliance on research and facts illustrating the need for sweatshops makes the audience trust the author (e.g., the analysis conducted across Asia and Latin America). However, not supporting all the claims with documented statistics can be considered a weakness (e.g., statements regarding women’s empowerment). Overall, Sieger’s essay is efficient since it conveys the author’s view on sweatshops’ positive contribution and appeals to the audience, encouraging them to view the issue from a different perspective.