The Truth About iPhone Factory Workers
By Mike Elgan
http://www.cultofmac.com/197050/the-truth-about-iphone-factory-workers/
The article "The Truth About iPhone Factory Workers" by Mike Elgan targets the controversies that arise from American Companies sending labor to other countries, specifically China. By using literary techniques such as diction, language, and details, he is able to push his message across that displacing potential work into other countries is unwise. The effective use of these techniques allows the rhetorics of his situation to be seen and be used effectively. Elgan tries to use an argumentive rhetorical situation because he presents a firm position and belief that contrasts the rest of society.
Elgan uses carefully chosen diction to show that the idea that sending jobs overseas to China has negative effects on Chinese working conditions or wages is unrealistic. He calls the idea "moronic", "a brain-dead caricature", and "ludicrous". By using words such as "cramped", "harsh", and "brutal" to describe the life of a poverty-stricken Chinese person, he is able to contrast this with the way their life will be improved after these struggles. He shows that by presenting them with more factory jobs, they are actually able to improve their life, contrary to belief that it creates more jobs with poor conditions.
He also uses language to support his argument as well. He uses colloquial language to support his argument. He uses these to his advantage because most people who state that factory jobs should stay in America most likely don't know the facts or are uninformed. By using colloquial language, he is able to persuade more people, especially those who are unable to get real facts. He is more influential this way. Additionally, he is far more approachable. However, his tone does sound slightly superior. He speaks in a way that makes those who think that labor in other countries is bad are unintelligent. This makes him appear more knowledgable, but also rude.
Details are effectively used throughout the article to support Elgan's stance that jobs overseas are not necessarily a bad thing. He uses details of the presidential debate to support the idea that politicians disagree. He uses the emotions that most people hold for politicians -distrust- and uses it to push people to distrust the idea that jobs overseas are bad. Details, language, and diction in the article push readers to agree with Elgan's stance.
Indent. :) Also, you say that his stance is that displacing jobs to other countries is unwise, however you argue the opposite, by saying that through these techniques he shows that jobs in other countries improve conditions for them. Also, in the section about colloquial language, using an example from his article would make that section a lot stronger. Same goes for the section about details,using quotes is a good idea. Also, adding a conclusion would make the piece seem more complete. :)
ReplyDeleteI think you might want to consider re-wording the first paragraph. You can play around with it, but I think that you should take out "The effective use of these techniques allows the rhetorics of his situation to be seen and be used effectively" because it is too repetitive and doesn't really contribute to what you're trying to say. Also, since you mention discussing diction, language, and details, have 3 paragraphs to help the organization. (Indenting, like Tulsi said, would help too!:)
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of your third paragraph your first two sentences seem redundant, I would delete one of them. In addition you don't provide any examples in this paragraph to support your claim. To make your argument stronger, add examples from the article. In your last paragraph I also recommend adding more examples, but also this paragraph seems to contradict your original thesis.
ReplyDelete