In the very first sentence of his 2006 essay, “Sweatshop Oppression”, published in Ohio State University’s student newspaper, the Lantern, Ravinsankar (as cited in Kirszner & Mandell, 2017, p.117-118) not only names his audience as “’poor’ college students” (Ravinsankar, 2006), he uses pathos with the words “we” and “us”, thereby identifying himself and his audience as the same, one group always in search of a good deal. The problem is that consumer’s demands for low prices results in corporations locating their factories in third world countries, paying workers “pennies per hour” for working long hours nonstop in unsanitary conditions (2006). Ravinsankar has a B.A. in International Studies and Political Science from Ohio State University, and has done much …show more content…
Ravisankar refutes the opposing argument that activists are hurting the people of these developing countries by causing the corporations to remove their factories by stating that the corporations are at fault for moving to ever more destitute countries for the cheapest labor possible. And they will do nothing to change that unless they are forced. He then tells his readers that they have the power to make a difference by joining organizations like University Students against Sweatshops (USAS), that put pressure on universities to buy only from factories that “respect worker’ rights” (2006), which in turn puts pressure on the corporations. The universities have considerable power since they spend close to “$3 billion in T-shirts, sweatshirts, caps, sneakers, and sports uniforms adorned with their institutions’ names and logos” (2006). He concludes that forcing the issue is the only way corporations will change their operations, again identifying with his audience with his use of the word “we” in the last