Rhetorical Analysis
“Where Sweatshops Are A Dream” In his New York Times opinion column, “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream”, writer Nicholas D. Kristof uses his experience living in East Asia to argue his positive outlook on sweatshops. Kristof wants to persuade his audience, Obama and his team, along with others who are for “labor standards”, that the best way to help people in poor countries is to promote manufacturing there, not campaign against them. He uses Phnom Penh as an example to show why working in the sweatshops is a dream for the families there. They would rather work at a sweatshop than stay in the dangerous garbage dump, searching for something to recycle for change. The writer establishes credibility through his experience
He also explains how some families are so poor that these children are going years without visiting doctors or even being bathed. Sweatshop jobs give them a chance for a better life for their families. In my previous paragraphs I commented on Kristof’s testimonies and use of figurative language. In both of those categories he also appealed to the audiences emotions. His use of descriptive language like “festering refuse”, “toxic stink”, “This Dante-like vision of hell” (pg. 109) gave the reader such clear visuals of the filthy, dangerous, and frightening conditions of the dump. Another example of Kristof’s appeal to emotions is in the very last paragraph. He tells us (the reader) to take 13-year-old Neuo Chanthous story and take that into consideration when forming your opinion. “…and she worries about her sister, who lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran her over” (paragraph 16, pg. 111). He continues with a quote from the girl, “It’s dirty, hot, and smelly here,” “A factory is better”(paragraph 17, pg. 111). Ending his argument this way is like an emotional cliffhanger. It leaves a sadness and concern, which helps convince the audience that there is a positive outlook on sweatshops and that these families truly think of it as a dream job. Kristof was successful in writing an informative and persuasive argument on the positive outlook on sweatshop jobs. He presented a logical solution; promoting sweatshops will help them out of poverty,