Our global economy is growing daily and as this happens the need for consumer goods is growing along with it. The companies, which produce many of these goods, are always looking for cheaper ways to get their products into consumer's hands quicker than their competitors. Cheap labor is a major factor in how they accomplish this, and the use of sweatshops is rampant with major companies worldwide. The two articles show a total opposite view from each other on the topic of sweatshops. David Henderson's article holds a pro-sweatshop stance and uses real world examples as to why they are necessary and the opportunity they offer to the employees. Wanda Embar's article is completely against the use of sweatshops and uses a more vague approach to the issue using more examples of goods produced in sweatshops.
Henderson's article builds a solid case for sweatshops, as the title states. The use examples he uses are very specific and strengthen his stance on the subject by involving the reader and not just throwing facts out hoping they are enough to convince the reader. Having an actual employee of a sweatshop say, "I wish more people would buy the clothes we make"(Henderson, 2000), not only is an example but also goes after the reader's emotions. The use of playing on reader's emotions when writing a persuasive article is an excellent way to grab and hold the readers attention. The example Henderson uses are excellent choices as they are all people and companies we know and have seen before, former president Clinton and Sears Roebuck are two commonly known examples which allow the reader to understand the reading. Another excellent example he uses are some of the alternative employment options in the countries sweatshops are closed, in Bangladesh for example, "thousands of the children became prostitutes or starved"(Henderson, 2000). Henderson using these examples and writing style has written a very solid article arguing his opinion on sweatshops....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document