Argumentative Analysis

The USA spends five million dollars every year on rescue operations (Article 2 paragraph 2), and why should American taxpayers pay to rescue people who put themselves at risk? Even though we live in America, and help each other out, the rescuee should pay for their own rescue because lots of money is spent on self-inflicted incidents, other successful countries approach the argument this way, and rescuers’ lives are put at risk. A reason why rescuees should pay for their own rescue is that many incidents are self -inflicted. Recently, both sides of the argument started to ask themselves, “Do people have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk?” Stated within the question is the word themselves. This question indirectly states that “they” got into trouble due to self-infliction. According to Dictionary.com, self-infliction is “Inflicted by oneself upon oneself.” An example of self-infliction is on article 2 paragraph 3, where the text states, “Also in 2009 … A $500 fee for hikers who reached the top of the 14er and called for help because they were too tired to walk down.” This quote shows that people that had been “tired” had made society pay to run extremely expensive machinery, while they only had
According to Source 3, a national park ranger died while rescuing climbers. A reason why this is evidence supporting the rescuee pays is that rescuees go out and risk their lives, and sometimes lose them, but yet, the person rescued doesn’t have to pay a dime. How is that fair to the families who lose a close relative? Another reason why the rescuee should pay is stated in article 3 paragraph 4, when Erin MacDonald says how regardless of the circumstances, they will be out rescue you immediately. This supports the rescuee pays because as much as the rescuers are bold, they are constantly risking their lives, no matter what your conditions are exposed