In his New York Times essay, “Where Sweatshops are a Dream,” writer Nicholas Kristof uses the beginning talks on labor standards between President Obama and his team to expose the dark side of extremely poor nations—sweatshops being dream jobs. Kristof explains to his readers why taking away sweatshops from undeveloped nations would lead to destroying the one of the few ways out of poverty and deplorable living situations. His first goal is to establish that sweatshops are an “escalator out of poverty.” His second goal is to educate his audience on what improving labor standards would equate for these poor nations. By establishing ethos, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Kristoff succeeds in writing an interesting and informative …show more content…
Pathos is the appeal to the emotions. First, the audience is captivated by the description of the toxic burning garbage dump that these families have to live in due to poverty. Not only are these families living in a garbage dump, but they are sending their children out to collect recyclable goods in bulk that can only be sold for pennies on the dollar (Kristoff 109). In America if the police found out of this behavior, child protective services would take these children away from their parents. It wouldn’t end there, the parents would be taken to jail for abuse and endangering the lives of their children. Nonetheless, multiple kids have been killed via being run over by garbage trucks in these dumps.
Additionally, Kristof uses ethos. Ethos is the character and credibility of a person. Kristof explains that his views are shaped by his years living in East Asia, through observing the living standards rise through the use of sweat shop jobs (110). Here he shows that he has real life experience of his argument. He also demonstrates ethos by showing he is open-minded. He takes into account the audiences’ views that have not experienced or seen first-hand the benefits of what a sweatshop is capable of doing to a poverty stricken