Discussion Post : Week 2

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenreich-stealing-from-the-poor-20120517,0,7201749.story

Page 102 PA

1. Paraphrase this essay's thesis.

Instead of attacking us equally when the government wants more money, they attack the poor. They see it as survival of the fittest and are trying to wein out the "weakest links", or in other words, the poor.

2. What arguements does the writer present as evidence to support her thesis? Which do you think is the strongest arguement? Which is the weakest?

"Gary Rivlin, who wrote "Broke USA," calculated that the poor pay an effective surcharge of about $30 billion a year for the financial and banking services they use."

"Kim Bobo documents in her book "Wage Theft in America" how U.S. employers pocket at least $100 billion a year through such things as requiring employees to work hours for which they're not paid, failing to pay minimum wage and refusing to honor overtime pay differentials."

"Being poor itself is not yet a crime, but in at least a third of the states, being in debt can now land you in jail. If a creditor like a landlord or credit card company has a court summons issued for you and you fail to show up on your appointed court date, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. And it is easy enough to miss a court summons, which may have been delivered to the wrong address or, in the case of some bottom-feeding bill collectors, simply tossed in the garbage — a practice so common that the industry even has a term for it: "sewer service.""

This passages gives a long list of arguements but out of those, these are the ones that popped out the most. The last one I find as a big arguement since I have experienced things like it before, so I understand from personal experience. The weakest would have to be..

"Poor people are more likely than the affluent to get into trouble with the law, either by failing to pay parking fines or by incurring the wrath of a private sector creditor like a landlord or a hospital."

3. What opposing arguement does the writter address? What other oppoing arguements could she have addressed?

The government attacking the poor for money. She could have added in there about what benifits they give the rich ( letting them do basically whatever they want and not get into trouble.)

4. What points does the conclusion emphasize? Do you think any other points should be emphasized?

Basically what they need to do, instead of trying to bust the poor for stealing they need to start focusing on millionaire employers who steal from us. I think she could have emphasized a little on how they need to easy up on the laws instead of trying to bust the poor for every little ting that they do.

5. Contruct a syllogism that expresses the essay's arguement. Then, check your syllogism to make sure it is sound.

Only the poor get attacked by the government.

The rich are not poor.

Therefore, the rich does not get attacked by the government.

Page 112 PA

1. What is this essay's thesis? Restate in your own words.

Since the poor are so desperate to get the things they need to survive, the government and local businesses have finally got the idea that if they give them what they want, they can get more out of them. The see the poor as weak and deprived and when you dangle a dog treat over the face of a dog they will do anything to get it.

2. Why do you think they place the thesis where they do?

To explain exactly to expect as you as you read on.

3. What evidence do they use to support their conslusion?

"Poor people are more likely than the affluent to get into trouble with the law, either by failing to pay parking fines or by incurring the wrath of a private sector creditor like a landlord or a hospital."

4. What inductive leap do they make to reach their conclusion? Do you think they should have concluded more evidence?

I believe they included all that they needed to in order to get the reader to understand.

5. Overall, do you think their inductive arguement is relatively strong or weak?

I think it was pretty strong. They included a lot of evidence in their passage and I could feel exactly what they meant as I read on.