http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/occupy-the-classroom.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
A brief synopsis: The best way to close the economic gap between the rich and poor and to solve inequalities among different races is to invest in early education (even before the age of five). Kristof says this will not only lessen those gaps, but also provide more money in the long run. Many other notable scholars agree, and many studies confirm this concept.
Kristof used a very logos-based argument. He drew in many figures and statistics from several valid studies that all confirmed what he was arguing, and he had some effective appeals to authority that were interesting and convincing. He also explains another stance on the topic but refutes that his idea is more important, an essential technique to any persuasive essay. While a logos-based political argument isn't typically enrapturing, and this one isn't any different, it certainly does its job. It's hard to ignore all the solid facts (or at least what he makes it seem like solid facts). This is why the article stands out as a solid persuasive essay, but it doesn't much entertain the reader, and it therefore probably won't draw in much of an audience to read the argument in the first place. The article may, however, attract the attention of the government because it reasons with the one thing the government is interested in: money. Kristof informs that early education reforms will provide an eventual 7% profit, and, to the government at least, this is more convincing than any pathos or ethos argument could be.
No comments:
Post a Comment