Rhetorical Analysis Of Banning Sweatshops Only Hurts The Poor

The idea of sweatshops is a widely contentious one, the morality of its conditions being such a debated topic that the kindling of the argument’s intensity can be traced all the way back to the 19th century. Writer Brittany Hunter shares her own perspective in, "Banning Sweatshops Only Hurts the Poor," pointing out how essential sweatshops are as they support their countries' economies in a way that hard labor jobs simply cannot. Backed up by a plethora of factual evidence, she implements her ideas to influence rethinking within opposers of the factory. her own audience’s ethical views and embedding knowledge on the matter to ensure credibility from a strong, indisputable position. Influenced by controversy surrounding Beyonce and her clothing

This purpose is to argue that sweatshops are a necessary way to boost the economies of poverty-stricken third world countries, which she does using the previously mentioned formatting and rhetorical appeals. This is most on display in Hunter’s introduction, where she states, “For those of us living in prosperous countries, it is easy to lament the existence of sweatshops in the developing world. So, when we get a glimpse of working conditions in places like Bangladesh, we are understandably appalled. However, the fact of the matter is that what we call “sweatshops are actually helping to lift developing countries out of poverty and into the global economy” (Hunter, 2018, p.1). This immediately introduces audiences to what the article will explore, which Hunter delivers on with a well-crafted argument. Crocker’s purpose is more unclear, coming off as argumentative as well but then diverting into more informative. Near the beginning, she points out that the controversy over sweatshops is not simple, and “...those outraged by the story should consider that developing countries can only compete with First World industries because they offer cheap labor; that competing with those industries results in industrial and economic growth; and so on” (Crocker, 2017, p.2). This presents a straightforward argument, addressing the counterargument and providing a rebuttal. However, the statement, “Avoiding potential PR disasters is another incentive for buyers and retailers to invest in factory safety” shows a shift away from making an argument to informing audiences about the reasoning behind why sweatshops exist. This change is no longer backing up Crocker’s perspective, but is providing solutions on how to benefit economies with sweatshops. Therefore, by following multiple styles of essays in her text, Crocker’s purpose is less clear compared to Hunter, who was arguing for