Sunrise

Kristof starts his argument by explaining that Barack Obama and his team were not doing what was best for the people in Phnom Penh by opposing sweatshops. For evidence he then quotes a 19-year-old stating, "I'd love to get a job in a factory." Kristof then quotes another woman and according to him she hopes he son grows up to get a factory job due to the facts that it would be more safe and pleasant. The purpose of his assay is to explain to his audience that, "sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause." In order to accomplish his purpose, Kristof appeals mainly to ethos. He appeals to pathos by quoting real experiences from people going through the situation that he is arguing in support of. An example of this would be when he stated, "Another women, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks." He states his refutation, " I often hear the argument: Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods." Kristof later states his thesis, " the best way to help people in poor countries isn't to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there. Kristof waits until the end of his argument to state his thesis, assuming that his audience has background knowledge on his topic weakens his argument. Another weakness in his argument is the lack of statistical evidence. All of Kristof's evidence was quotes from people only appealing to pathos. With the use of logos, his argument would be more convincing. Besides those weakness, Kristof's argument is well developed and very organized.