Summary Of No Drug Test No Welfare Yee
English 1301
Analysis of 'No drug test, no welfare' Whether or not a drug test is required by recipients of welfare has been questioned time and time again by many states. In the article "No drug test, no welfare", Kimberly Yee expands upon on this question by explaining what her stand point is on the many advantages of drug testing for welfare. In this particular article, Ms. Yee does not sufficiently argue her position on the subject of welfare recipients taking drug test to receive benefits. Yee is writing this article from a very conservative point of view to the average taxpaying citizen in order to persuade them of the benefits of drug testing for welfare. Yee states, " ...my fellow fiscal conservatives..." and she also refers to
the reader as "taxpayers". (Yee) Yee also uses much emotional appeal in this article to persuade the reader when she says that states are obligated to hold welfare recipients responsible for their actions and also that taxpayers have the right to know how their tax money is being spent. In the same way, Yee is writing this article from a very conservative view point, she is also very bias towards welfare recipients. In this article there is no ambiguity of the author's view on the subject, even the title "No drug test, no welfare" is very short, concise, and to the point which is a very accurate prelude to the rest of the article. Yee seems to omit much of the facts on the subject of welfare and relies solely on the emotional side of the argument. Yee fails to be effective in her use of evidence in the article and makes little effort to solidify the facts that she makes. While many of the arguments that Yee makes in this article are irrefutable saying that taxpayers should not condone those taking part in illegal activities, she falls short in providing further factual evidence to support her claims. Similarly, Yee is ineffective in her lack of factual evidence to support her claims but very successful in her ethos argument. Yee begins to pull at the readers emotion when she states, " ...drug users deny their own children a healthy lifestyle and positive example." (Yee) She also ends the article with a lasting impact saying, "Taxpayers deserve to know that their hard-earned dollars are wisely used and not funding a drug user's next hit." (Yee). Yee is also effective in relating to the audience since any civilian with a job is a taxpayer, this article is relevant and an important subject to many people. The author's word choice is also effective in appealing to emotion saying, "hard-earned dollars" and "condoning illegal behavior", just to name a couple examples (Yee). Furthermore, there are many faults that Yee makes in this article. Yee states that taxpayers are condoning illegal behavior when someone who is receiving government benefits uses drugs. In actuality, taxpayers are not condoning such behavior, they are simply paying the taxes that they have to pay. Yee's argument can be considered a hasty generalization fallacy because she is saying that all taxpayers are responsible for a welfare recipient using drugs.
Analysis of 'No drug test, no welfare' Whether or not a drug test is required by recipients of welfare has been questioned time and time again by many states. In the article "No drug test, no welfare", Kimberly Yee expands upon on this question by explaining what her stand point is on the many advantages of drug testing for welfare. In this particular article, Ms. Yee does not sufficiently argue her position on the subject of welfare recipients taking drug test to receive benefits. Yee is writing this article from a very conservative point of view to the average taxpaying citizen in order to persuade them of the benefits of drug testing for welfare. Yee states, " ...my fellow fiscal conservatives..." and she also refers to
the reader as "taxpayers". (Yee) Yee also uses much emotional appeal in this article to persuade the reader when she says that states are obligated to hold welfare recipients responsible for their actions and also that taxpayers have the right to know how their tax money is being spent. In the same way, Yee is writing this article from a very conservative view point, she is also very bias towards welfare recipients. In this article there is no ambiguity of the author's view on the subject, even the title "No drug test, no welfare" is very short, concise, and to the point which is a very accurate prelude to the rest of the article. Yee seems to omit much of the facts on the subject of welfare and relies solely on the emotional side of the argument. Yee fails to be effective in her use of evidence in the article and makes little effort to solidify the facts that she makes. While many of the arguments that Yee makes in this article are irrefutable saying that taxpayers should not condone those taking part in illegal activities, she falls short in providing further factual evidence to support her claims. Similarly, Yee is ineffective in her lack of factual evidence to support her claims but very successful in her ethos argument. Yee begins to pull at the readers emotion when she states, " ...drug users deny their own children a healthy lifestyle and positive example." (Yee) She also ends the article with a lasting impact saying, "Taxpayers deserve to know that their hard-earned dollars are wisely used and not funding a drug user's next hit." (Yee). Yee is also effective in relating to the audience since any civilian with a job is a taxpayer, this article is relevant and an important subject to many people. The author's word choice is also effective in appealing to emotion saying, "hard-earned dollars" and "condoning illegal behavior", just to name a couple examples (Yee). Furthermore, there are many faults that Yee makes in this article. Yee states that taxpayers are condoning illegal behavior when someone who is receiving government benefits uses drugs. In actuality, taxpayers are not condoning such behavior, they are simply paying the taxes that they have to pay. Yee's argument can be considered a hasty generalization fallacy because she is saying that all taxpayers are responsible for a welfare recipient using drugs.