In the essay sweatshirts to sweatshops several universal intellectual standards have been violated. To begin with, the speaker breaches the fairness that should be upheld in an argument by presenting the “little girl was working hour after hour while trying not to collapse from the heat” (Cournoyer, 2011). In putting this across, the speaker is attempting to influence the audience by invoking their emotions of sympathy on the little girl. Since the speaker’s argument is not based on facts, the audience can as well dismiss it. In fact, there might never have been a little girl in the actual situation thereby rendering the speaker’s statement as irrelevant. This scenario could be rectified by omitting the bit about the little girl and in its place; the speaker can present an interview on a child working in the factory to give actual facts about the conditions of the said factory.
Another example of violation of Universal Intellectual Standard is exemplified in the following statement. “the according to the director of auxiliary services at Cromwell, more than 90% of the logo merchandise is produced by Transterra Textiles” (Cournoyer, 2011). This is because the audience does not have proof that the said director has the credibility to speak on production of merchandise and the overall reversal of exploitation at the factory. In place of the director, the speaker should have obtained information from an administrator in charge of purchasing merchandise for one or more of the affected colleges.
The third instance of violation of universal intellectual standards occurs when the speaker has made use of a report that was done by the “WorldWeave Foundation”. The audience may never have heard about this foundation and as such the audience has no way of verifying the “facts” stated by the speaker. The speaker has not cited the sources of the information in the paragraph for the audience to verify its credibility. This violation of intellectual standards could be rectified by citing the sources from which the speaker obtained the information thereby giving his statement credibility.
The fourth example of violation of universal intellectual standards is exemplified when the speaker stated that, “observers noticed some children who appeared to be as young as eleven or twelve” (Cournoyer, 2011). The use of the word “appeared” insinuates that the ages of the children seen working at the sweatshops could not be verified. The speaker could rectify this statement and add credibility to it by obtaining information on the actual ages of the children observed working in the sweatshops.
The speaker also presents some logical fallacies. The first one of these fallacies argues that for students to end exploitation in sweatshops they “I call upon you to boycott all Cromwell apparels-not to wear any sweatshirts you may already have” (Cournoyer, 2011). This is a fallacy of false dilemma because the students may not have an alternative choice of attire in case they chose to boycott Cromwell’s attires. This fallacy could be rectified by the speaker presenting workable solutions to reduce human suffering in sweatshops such as advocating for enforcement of legislations that safeguard human rights.
The second fallacy is evident in the following statement. “We can demand that Cromwell obtain its logo merchandise from garment companies with socially responsible labor practices” (Cournoyer, 2011). This kind of fallacy is called the appeal to authority. The speaker feels he has the authority to demand that Cromwell and other companies exercise socially responsible practices. This statement is a fallacy because the students have no clear means of evaluating labor practices without being unfair to some garment companies. This fallacy can be corrected by students presenting finding ways to compel local authorities to enforce labor laws instead of vaguely demanding responsibility from garment companies.
The third fallacy states that, “we have a choice; to do what we can in support or to become the oppressor” (Cournoyer, 2011). This type of fallacy is called the association fallacy where people are presumed guilty by associating or failing to associate with the speaker’s opinion. The statement is fallacy because it translates the wearing of clothes made in sweatshops to mean that wearers oppress the workers in those companies. This fallacy could be corrected by the speaker suggesting more concrete reasons as to how the general public and the purchasers of sweatshop products oppress the workers.
The fourth fallacy states “Just so we can buy Cromwell sweatshirts to show off to our families and friends. It is obscene and it has to stop.” This is also an association fallacy where the speaker construes the purchase of Cromwell sweatshirts to mean show off to family and friends. This statement is a fallacy because not all sweatshirts are made in sweatshops under inhumane conditions. Moreover, not all people buy Cromwell sweatshirts to show off to their families and friends. This fallacy could be corrected by the speaker stating plainly that it is bad for people to knowingly buy products made in sweatshops. The speaker could have done this in place of passing blanket condemnation to everyone who wears Cromwell sweatshirts. Better still the speaker could have omitted this statement.
Works cited
Cournoyer, Barry. The Social Work Skills Workbook. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
