What would it be like to become so malnourished that you are forced to seek immediate medical attention? Matthew O’Brien brings this issue to light in his article, “Poverty is literally making people sick because they can’t afford food”. The article’s purpose is to expose us to the reality of poverty. He discusses how low-income people get hospitalized when their monthly welfare benefits run out. O’Brien introduces his point that states that the people at the low end of the income level become ill when they run out of benefits. He extensively backs up his claim with facts from notable scientists and researchers. Later in the article, he transitions to a more emotional language as he speaks out in frustration. While O’Brien does an effective
…show more content…
He uses a credible economist to bolster his argument that increasing minimum wage could boost incomes at the bottom. This supports his opinion that increasing minimum wage is a possible solution to poverty. However, this is just an opinion and has no proof to back the claim. O’Brien then makes a claim that once you resolve one part, the whole thing will fix itself because “poverty begets poverty”— poverty gives rise to poverty (O’Brien). He supports this claim by using a statement from a credible source in the field of health and social policies. This source says exactly what O’Brien wants, which is to “[give] poorer people more [money and they can] afford more food at the end of the month” (O’Brien). This source he uses gives a general, broad statement that no one could deny because increasing welfare could save money by saving the person an expensive medical visit. This ultimately supports the idea that poverty gives rise to poverty. However, O’Brien didn’t consider both sides of the argument, try to prove the argument wrong, or consider other possibilities of what they would do with this extra money. If he did this, his article would be more effective than it is now. While O’Brien used credible sources, these statements he used are just their opinions in their field, not facts and evidence. The reader would probably believe these statements are true because they are written by credible sources, that people know how to solve the issue, and that the group O’Brien blamed earlier is the main reason why it isn’t being resolved. Again, this gives the wrong message to the reader and limits the overall effectiveness of the
He uses a credible economist to bolster his argument that increasing minimum wage could boost incomes at the bottom. This supports his opinion that increasing minimum wage is a possible solution to poverty. However, this is just an opinion and has no proof to back the claim. O’Brien then makes a claim that once you resolve one part, the whole thing will fix itself because “poverty begets poverty”— poverty gives rise to poverty (O’Brien). He supports this claim by using a statement from a credible source in the field of health and social policies. This source says exactly what O’Brien wants, which is to “[give] poorer people more [money and they can] afford more food at the end of the month” (O’Brien). This source he uses gives a general, broad statement that no one could deny because increasing welfare could save money by saving the person an expensive medical visit. This ultimately supports the idea that poverty gives rise to poverty. However, O’Brien didn’t consider both sides of the argument, try to prove the argument wrong, or consider other possibilities of what they would do with this extra money. If he did this, his article would be more effective than it is now. While O’Brien used credible sources, these statements he used are just their opinions in their field, not facts and evidence. The reader would probably believe these statements are true because they are written by credible sources, that people know how to solve the issue, and that the group O’Brien blamed earlier is the main reason why it isn’t being resolved. Again, this gives the wrong message to the reader and limits the overall effectiveness of the