Essay Comparing The Great Indian Dream And High-Tech Hijack

The goal of Friedman and Moberg is to persuade their audience that their point is more agreeable then someone else. Friedman the author of “The Great Indian Dream” and Moberg the author of “High-Tech Hijack” have both similar but very different ways of grabbing their readers with credibility, good reasoning and feelings. Friedman and Moberg grab their audience to persuade the reader about offshoring by using ethos which is ethical appeal, logos is logical appeal, and pathos which is emotional appeal.

I feel that in both the “High-Tech Hijack” and in “The Great Indian Dream” the authors start off by using pathos to grab the attention of their audience. They both ease the emotions of their reads to attempt favorability to their side of the
Friedman on one hand uses logos through a quote from an Indian executive which has a tone of a wakeup call to tell Americans to get to work and work twice as hard because we do not want to darken things but we want to bring light. Friedman also uses a, “competition point of view, is that there are 555 million Indians under the age of 25, and a lot of them want a piece of “The Great Indian Dream,” which is a lot like the American version”(Friedman). The tone of that statement is how Indians want what Americans have and how there are a lot more of them to get it accomplished. On the other hand Moberg uses logos to focus on statistical data that explains how,“corporations have shifted roughly a half million business service and IT jobs, many highly skilled, to developing countries. This has kept high-tech unemployment up, driven down wages, sparked job anxieties ... and generated political backlash”(Moberg). Moberg presents generally known facts to prove his point; he also uses not only scientific evidence but mathematical evidence as well. Moberg uses the information so his audience will more likely agree with his