One objection to hosting the World Cup mentioned by author one includes the excessive amount of government money used to host the event. In addition, concerns that hosting the event led to increased government corruption have also led to objections. On the other hand, author one explains how hosting the World Cup benefitted Brazil’s tourist industry. Due to the World Cup, companies trained workers to better satisfy customers by learning new languages. As a result, workers in Brazil became more productive and were able to earn higher wages. In addition, if foreign visitors are satisfied with their visit, they will advertise in their own countries and encourage others to visit Brazil, increasing tourism and revenue for Brazil.
One weakness …show more content…
The author of Document 2 organizes his argument into four paragraphs each containing a different supporting piece of evidence. On the other hand, Document 1 is high unorganized in structure, the examples are repetitive and unclear. The organization of Document 2 makes its argument much stronger and easier to follow than Document 1. Another strength in Document 2 is its author’s use of reliable sources. The author of Document 2 cites sources such as the Geneva Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. The author uses data backed up by reliable sources. The data taken about the displaced families is very accurate because it came from a government census. In contrast, Document 1 does not cite any sources at all. Document 1’s lack of sources weakens the argument making Document 2’s argument much stronger. The author of Document 2 ties all of his ideas together at the end of an article with a cohesive conclusion paragraph. The author explains how all of the evidence led to his conclusion that organized events like the World Cup are detrimental to a country’s society and economy. Unlike Document 2, Document 1 conclusion consists of a single sentence. Without a cohesive conclusion, it is hard for readers to tie all of the author’s ideas together. As a result, author 1 was not able to fully prove his argument that organized events like the World Cup are beneficial to a country’s society and economy. As a result, Document 2’s argument is much stronger than Document
One weakness …show more content…
The author of Document 2 organizes his argument into four paragraphs each containing a different supporting piece of evidence. On the other hand, Document 1 is high unorganized in structure, the examples are repetitive and unclear. The organization of Document 2 makes its argument much stronger and easier to follow than Document 1. Another strength in Document 2 is its author’s use of reliable sources. The author of Document 2 cites sources such as the Geneva Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. The author uses data backed up by reliable sources. The data taken about the displaced families is very accurate because it came from a government census. In contrast, Document 1 does not cite any sources at all. Document 1’s lack of sources weakens the argument making Document 2’s argument much stronger. The author of Document 2 ties all of his ideas together at the end of an article with a cohesive conclusion paragraph. The author explains how all of the evidence led to his conclusion that organized events like the World Cup are detrimental to a country’s society and economy. Unlike Document 2, Document 1 conclusion consists of a single sentence. Without a cohesive conclusion, it is hard for readers to tie all of the author’s ideas together. As a result, author 1 was not able to fully prove his argument that organized events like the World Cup are beneficial to a country’s society and economy. As a result, Document 2’s argument is much stronger than Document