Krugman utilizes a plethora of rhetorical techniques to build his credibility as an inditer. He opens this chapter with an anecdote about his life, explicating that “The America I grew up in was a relatively equal middle-class society” , giving insight into his experience in the past, as well as exhibiting the distinguishment between America then and America now. He transitions into the crux of his paper with the utilization of hypophora, asking “Why should we care about high and elevating inequality?”, setting himself up to answer this question and referring back to it throughout his work. In conjunction with his setup of experience this question frames the rest of the chapter to develop in to giving reason to care about inequality.
Proceeding with his argument, Krugman commences by building a logical structure that rejects what his opponents have verbalized on the topic of inequality. This is efficacious because he not only considers what the opposition verbally expresses, but utilizes this as a commencement to tell the audience why inequality is paramount. An example of this is when he frames his argument by asserting, “One of the best arguments I've ever optically discerned... emanated from a kineticism conservative endeavoring to argue the …show more content…
He compares the amount of unionized workers in Canada and the United States, exhibiting how in the past the percent of unionized workers was commensurable between the two countries, but thirty years later there has been a loss in the United States while Canada remained at the same rate. This is a good pergrinate to initiate because Canada neighbors the United States, and if Krugman claims that they are doing more preponderant with their unionized labor rates it will evoke a sense of patriotism in those who did not ken that coalescence reductions were only occurring in the United