In his new York times essay “where sweatshops are dream” writer Nicholas D. Kristof makes a number of points regarding what he sees as an adverse effect of labor standards compliance on the economic development of low-income countries that we feel require some clarification and comment. His purpose in this essay is to let people know that sweatshops can help people. Kristof assumes his readers are Americans that are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid barely legal workers in dangerous factories. By establishing his credibility, building his case slowly, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Kristof succeeds in writing effective argument.
Most of us think that we make our decisions based on rational thought. However, Aristotle points out that emotions such as anger, pity, fear, and their opposites, powerfully influence our rational judgments. Due to this fact, much of our political discourse and much of the advertising we experience is directed toward moving our emotions. Kristof appeals to pathos by using words or images designed to move readers and appeal to the reader’s emotion. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. “The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn.” “Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.” This examples show how Kristof creates a connection between the two sides in which the audience feels that their beliefs and values are being considered and therefore become emotionally involved. Throughout this short essay, Kristof uses emotionally loaded language and his arguments include vivid descriptions or striking examples intended to appeal to reader’s emotion.
As a columnist for The Times since 2001, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner who writes op-ed columns that appear twice a week, Kristof has credibility.