In the "Sweatshop Oppression," published in The Lantern newspaper, Rajeev Ravisankar begins his essay by introducing himself as a fellow, struggling college student as a way to form a connection with his audience so that he can grab their attention and his readers will give heed to his argument. By identifying with, and expressing empathy for his readers, Ravisankar (2006) is able to establish a connection with his readers based on the similar financial plight of being a college and their wish to spend less and save more (para. 1). Furthermore, it is because of the average college student’s lack of financial prosperity that contributes to the drawback of “low-cost driven consumerism”: sweatshop labor (para. 2). Ravisankar assumes that although
…show more content…
In order to accomplish this purpose, Ravisankar appeals mainly to consumers who actively contribute to the existence of sweatshops by refusing to “pay a little bit more even if it would improve the lives of sweatshop workers” (para. 5). He also appeals to the corporations that employ sweatshop labor tactics for the sake of decreasing expenses all the while increasing their profit. With regard to Ravisankar’s way of gaining and keeping his readers’ attention, he applies two means of persuasion: pathos and logos. He uses emotionally charged and descriptive words to get his readers to sympathize with the workers’ working conditions and he uses reason when explaining companies' stingy motives for embracing sweatshop …show more content…
6). Moreover, critics, with the purpose of projecting blame, argues that workers’ rights activists are forcing companies to move their location (rather than face criticism), and in so doing, results in the unemployment of those who need work (para. 6). However, that logic begs the question: If these corporations are not in the wrong, then why do they feel the need the need to move their companies to locations with weak labor laws. Nevertheless, Ravisankar refutes this argument by stating that corporations will increase their profit by any means necessary, even if those means entail practices that violate workers’ human rights (para. 5). Hence, Ravisankar asserts that it is the corporations that ought to be held accountable for “the system of exploitation” not individuals bringing awareness to human rights abuse and attempting to bring forth labor unions and stronger labor laws (para.
In order to accomplish this purpose, Ravisankar appeals mainly to consumers who actively contribute to the existence of sweatshops by refusing to “pay a little bit more even if it would improve the lives of sweatshop workers” (para. 5). He also appeals to the corporations that employ sweatshop labor tactics for the sake of decreasing expenses all the while increasing their profit. With regard to Ravisankar’s way of gaining and keeping his readers’ attention, he applies two means of persuasion: pathos and logos. He uses emotionally charged and descriptive words to get his readers to sympathize with the workers’ working conditions and he uses reason when explaining companies' stingy motives for embracing sweatshop …show more content…
6). Moreover, critics, with the purpose of projecting blame, argues that workers’ rights activists are forcing companies to move their location (rather than face criticism), and in so doing, results in the unemployment of those who need work (para. 6). However, that logic begs the question: If these corporations are not in the wrong, then why do they feel the need the need to move their companies to locations with weak labor laws. Nevertheless, Ravisankar refutes this argument by stating that corporations will increase their profit by any means necessary, even if those means entail practices that violate workers’ human rights (para. 5). Hence, Ravisankar asserts that it is the corporations that ought to be held accountable for “the system of exploitation” not individuals bringing awareness to human rights abuse and attempting to bring forth labor unions and stronger labor laws (para.