Sweatshirts to Sweatshops
In the essay “Sweatshirts to Sweatshops,” many of the universal intellectual standards are violated. To begin with, the speaker talks about the “little girl…working hour after hour…trying not to collapse from the heat…” and that violates the fairness of the argument. He is trying to manipulate the audience by appealing to their emotional side. This argument is not based in factual evidence, and therefore, could be dismissed by the audience. There may not be a little girl in this exact situation described, and therefore, this statement is irrelevant.
This could be corrected by leaving the entire story of the “little girl” out, or an interview of a child that works in the factory could be conducted giving a first-hand look into the conditions of the workplace. The essay also has an error in accuracy. The speaker uses a report done by the “WorldWeave Foundation” and the audience may never have heard of this foundation. Many “facts” are stated in the paragraph about this report, yet there is no way for the audience to check these “facts.
Sweatshirts to Sweatshops Essay Example
No websites or articles are cited in order for the audience to verify the speakers statements, so these statements cannot be perceived as facts just because the speaker says they are. This could be corrected by including the document spoken of in the essay or citing the document and giving instructions on how to access it. Another error in accuracy is when the speaker states that “observers noticed some children who appeared to be as young as eleven or twelve…” because it uses the word ‘appeared. ’ This word does not give to factual evidence.
We have no proof that these people the speaker refers to were actually eleven or twelve. This could be resolved by leaving this statement out or even getting proof from the workers of their ages. Verification is needed in this instance. Another violation in universal intellectual standards is a violation in breadth. Although the speaker is calling for a boycott of the sweatshirts made by Transterra Textiles because of underage workers and poor working conditions, we need to consider the workers’ point of views.
These workers may not have anywhere better to work and desperately need the money. This violation could be resolved by interviewing workers about their jobs and doing research to find out the conditions of other job opportunities in their area. Another point of view is definitely needed in this argument. 2. At the end of the essay, the speaker gives only a choice between one or the other solution, leaving out any other options, which is known as a false dilemma. The speaker states, “[t]here are two things we can do to put an end to this exploitation.
We can demand that Cromwell obtain its logo merchandise only from garment companies with socially responsible labor practices, and we an refuse to wear or purchase any Cromwell clothing until the college switches to an acceptable apparel supplier. ” This is a false dilemma because the speaker does not include any other possibilities. This hurts the essay because the speaker only gives the audience a limited number of options. The speaker wants the audience to feel that they only have a limited amount of choices, when in reality, they could just ignore the problem. Emotive language is another fallacy that the speaker uses.
Emotive language is when the speaker tries to appeal to the audience using peer pressure, flattery, pity, and/or fear. The speaker states, “We have a choice: to do what we can in support of global economic justice, or to become the oppressor. ” No one wants to be responsible for the oppression of a people, so the speaker is using peer pressure to get the audience to agree with him. The speaker is basically saying, “either side with me, or you will be the oppressor. ” In reality, the people buying the t-shirts are not oppressing anyone directly, but the speaker wants the audience to feel that they would be totally responsible.
This is a poor choice for the speaker because he does not put the blame where it belongs, but pushes it off onto someone else causing the audience to agree with him based on their guilt, not facts. The speaker uses post hoc in his essay as a means to convince his audience that buying shirts is causing these factory workers to remain working in poor conditions. Post hoc is when a cause-effect relationship is suggested just because one thing happened before another. The speaker says that by buying sweatshirts from the school, they are oppressing the workers.
In reality, the oppression come from government standards of the country in which factory is located. Finally, the speaker uses ad populum, a device that appeals to audiences and their natural yearning to be a part of a group. At the beginning of the essay, the speaker calls the audience “[f]riends. ” This automatically groups the speaker and the audience together pushing the audience toward agreeing with the speaker without ever hearing any facts. The essay is flawed now because the speaker is not getting people to agree with him based on facts, but on camaraderie.