Thesis.
Sweatshops provide better living standards for their workers in third world countries.
Appeals
Pathos comes out when the writer starts breaking down the statistical data especially on the brands that have been protested against as being sweatshops one example being Nike. The author argues that in Indonesia Nike employees received wages higher than the national average and also non-monetary compensations in form of healthcare benefits and meals, thus, earnings were understated here the writer tries to provoke sympathy from the reader towards the multinationals (Powell and Skarbek 13).
The final mode of persuasion is logos and is in the conclusion where the author argues that in spite of the data limitations the firms accused of being sweatshops compare favorably with the nation's living standards.
Figures of speech
The common figure of speech throughout the article is the use of the term sweatshop to denote poor working conditions that employees are subject to from the multinational companies.
Logical fallacies
The logical fallacy brought forth by the writer is that good pay is tantamount to better living and working standards (Powell and Skarbek 15). The argument is an assumption that lacks factual backing.
Structure
The essay is a Rogerian argument in that it starts by summing up the opposing views on sweatshops then moves to the statement of position, contexts and finally it states the benefits of outsourced labor to third world countries.
Summary
Work cited:
Powell, Benjamin, and David Skarbek. "Sweatshops And Third World Living Standards: Are The Jobs Worth The Sweat?". J Labor Res 27.2 (2006): 263-274. Web.
