Evaluating and Engaging Wal-Mart Argument
Vaughn W. Walker
Wilsey-Cleveland
Eng. 100
2 November 2012
Evaluating and Engaging Wal-Mart Argument
Wal-Mart has made American living more affordable. The company provides more jobs and supplies consumers with cheap merchandise. Over the years Wal-Mart has become a big topic of discussion. Author Steve Malanga exonerates the benefits of Wal-Mart. In Steve Malanga’s essay, “The War on Wal-Mart,” Malanga discusses how Wal-Mart has produced many jobs, made shopping equitable for low income families, and how it has become such a successful and self-manageable company. He believes it is best for our economy. Malanga provides a much stronger argument than author Dan Levine. This assumption is supported by various rhetorical strategies. In contrast, Levine consistently commits fallacies. Author Dan Levine of “Wal-Mart’s Big City Blues” argues against Wal-Mart because it does not abide by the living wage ordinance of Hartford, CT. The use of rhetorical strategies and fallacies in both essays will be evaluated to better determine if one author’s argument is more legitimate than the other.
Malanga’s essay is well composed of legitimized claims with supported reasoning. He expresses his thoughts very clearly along with the use of rhetorical strategies. Rhetorical strategies are tremendously useful when making claims or arguments. The first rhetorical strategy Malanga uses is citing experts. When he declares, “Wal-Mart has led a productivity revolution in re-tailing which supercharged the economy,” Malanga emphasizes that Warren Buffet himself declares that Wal-Mart has contributed more than any other business to the health of the economy (688) to further help his argument that Wal-Mart has provided more jobs and cheaper way of living. Citing experts is an effective way to convince someone because doing so provides the reader with insight that someone with experience agrees with the argument made. This creates logos which is a logic. Analogies are also valuable when
Wilsey-Cleveland
Eng. 100
2 November 2012
Evaluating and Engaging Wal-Mart Argument
Wal-Mart has made American living more affordable. The company provides more jobs and supplies consumers with cheap merchandise. Over the years Wal-Mart has become a big topic of discussion. Author Steve Malanga exonerates the benefits of Wal-Mart. In Steve Malanga’s essay, “The War on Wal-Mart,” Malanga discusses how Wal-Mart has produced many jobs, made shopping equitable for low income families, and how it has become such a successful and self-manageable company. He believes it is best for our economy. Malanga provides a much stronger argument than author Dan Levine. This assumption is supported by various rhetorical strategies. In contrast, Levine consistently commits fallacies. Author Dan Levine of “Wal-Mart’s Big City Blues” argues against Wal-Mart because it does not abide by the living wage ordinance of Hartford, CT. The use of rhetorical strategies and fallacies in both essays will be evaluated to better determine if one author’s argument is more legitimate than the other.
Malanga’s essay is well composed of legitimized claims with supported reasoning. He expresses his thoughts very clearly along with the use of rhetorical strategies. Rhetorical strategies are tremendously useful when making claims or arguments. The first rhetorical strategy Malanga uses is citing experts. When he declares, “Wal-Mart has led a productivity revolution in re-tailing which supercharged the economy,” Malanga emphasizes that Warren Buffet himself declares that Wal-Mart has contributed more than any other business to the health of the economy (688) to further help his argument that Wal-Mart has provided more jobs and cheaper way of living. Citing experts is an effective way to convince someone because doing so provides the reader with insight that someone with experience agrees with the argument made. This creates logos which is a logic. Analogies are also valuable when