Analysis of 'No drug test, no welfare'
Whether or not a drug test is required by recipients of welfare has been questioned time and time again by many states. In the article "No drug test, no welfare", Kimberly Yee expands upon on this question by explaining what her stand point is on the many advantages of drug testing for welfare. In this particular article, Ms. Yee does not sufficiently argue her position on the subject of welfare recipients taking drug test to receive benefits.
Yee is writing this article from a very conservative point of view to the average taxpaying citizen in order to persuade them of the benefits of drug testing for welfare. Yee states, " ...my fellow fiscal conservatives..." and she also refers to the reader as "taxpayers". (Yee) Yee also uses much emotional appeal in this article to persuade the reader when she says that states are obligated to hold welfare recipients responsible for their actions and also that taxpayers have the right to know how their tax money is being spent.
In the same way, Yee is writing this article from a very conservative view point, she is also very bias towards welfare recipients. In this article there is no ambiguity of the author's view on the subject, even the title "No drug test, no welfare" is very short, concise, and to the point which is a very accurate prelude to the rest of the article. Yee seems to omit much of the facts on the subject of welfare and relies solely on the emotional side of the argument.
Yee fails to be effective in her use of evidence in the article and makes little effort to solidify the facts that she makes. While many of the arguments that Yee makes in this article are irrefutable saying that taxpayers should not condone those taking part in illegal activities, she falls short in providing further factual evidence to support her claims.
Similarly, Yee is ineffective in her lack of factual evidence to support her claims but very successful in her ethos...