You are commenting using your WordPress. Ravisankar, does not do a good job on this side of the argument. In order to accomplish this purpose, he appeals mainly to the activist that criticizing sweatshops and bringing attention to them only hurts the workers. Use your money with your conscience and avoid the stores that place money above human lives. He makes his points clear without straying from the main idea, and he also sends an enthusiastic tone to the reader — one that makes the reader want to be a part of the cause and stand against sweatshop oppression.
A Rhetorical Analysis of Sweatshop Oppression | Composition2BlogSpot
View all posts by taylorlard. You are commenting using your Facebook account.
Overall, the argument Ravisankar makes is ineffective. Dhaka counts more than factories producing for export only. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Skip to content January 29, January 29, roaringrhinoblog.
He refutes this argument by saying that the sweatshops provide jobs in places where there are not any and that closing them could have a negative impact on the poor in rhwtorical areas. Opprsssion continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. Us as the consumer only see the finish products from which the items come from the rhetorucal like the clothes we wear, things we count as necessities, and even things that we use around our house.
He acknowledges the need to save money, and to find lower prices.
Rhetorical Analysis of Sweatshop Oppression – Taylor’s Blog
You are commenting using your WordPress. Us, the readers, the ones who rhetoricxl so heavily on cheaply made goods. While he gives us an argument on the deplorable working conditions of sweatshops, an equal argument is given that some of the poor would be even poorer if these factories did not exist at all. By doing this we are at the very least not making the problem worse.
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
Garment factory in Dhaka Bangladesh in the Mohakhali area. Ravisankar begins his essay by appealing to his audience of college students. Skip to content January 27, January 27, He refutes this analysiz by saying fundamentalists have argued that opposing sweatshops has a negative impact on the poor in the developing world; by opposing sweatshops, the companies move out of that area causing the poor to lose their jobs.
A Rhetorical Analysis of “Sweatshop Oppression” by Rajeev Ravisankar
Oppressipn problem he identifies is that large production companies rely on sweatshops to produce the cheap goods we all buy. He refutes this argument by saying the blame should be on the companies for wanting to give lower wages for lower prices. Email required Address never made public.
Notify me of new comments via email. By not buying the products we are not contributing to the low wages and working conditions. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see annalysis He then segues into his problem, which is sweatshop oppression.