Prompt: Read "Live Free and Starve" and "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" for 8/17. Write a blog contrasting the authors' opinions. Address your possible reader bias, and analyze each argument, ultimately agreeing or disagreeing with each argument or parts of each argument. Don't forget to use specific quotes to support your opinion and your analysis of each article.
Response: My reader bias is that the more kids we can help the better and I think this is more likely to occur by keeping the jobs mentioned in "Live Free and Starve". It seems like the kids who work those jobs are proud of their income and they have a contribution to their whole family because they can spend that money on what they need. Keeping these jobs will allow these kids to still somewhat support their siblings. The second arguement is that money is more necessary to help children, the issue is that this helps one child at a time. It says in the article, "By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old." I think what we should do is keep the jobs, so the kids can still work and provide for their families that way. We also spend money for the organizations helping these kids. That way they get their money and our help.
No comments:
Post a Comment