Week 2, Blog 1 (RA)

Striking a Blow for Democracy in Asia (Jeffery S. Brand)

Argument: Restoring aid that supports rule-of-law education in Cambodia.

Audience: Conference Committee (whose vote will decided whether or not the suspended aid is restored)

WATCO: Restoring aid that supports rule-of-law education in Cambodia ON stopping the corruption in Cambodia’s government?

Claim: Restoring aid that supports rule-of-law education in Cambodia will only be a help in stopping the corruption in Cambodia’s government…

Reason: because a transition to democracy will help Cambodians help themselves to create a more desirable government.

IA: Whatever will help Cambodians help themselves to create a more desirable government will also aid in stopping the corruption in Cambodia’s government.

Ethos: (credibility) The writer is very educated, and knows what he is talking about. He backs up his claims with quotes and facts.

Pathos: (emotion) The writer uses very strong words, as in the 3^rd paragraph when he addresses the 2 million people murdered by a dogmatic ruler. In the 5^th paragraph, he makes our hearts hurt for the other people in a different country who are ‘just like us’ in the first sentence: “The beneficiaries of such aid are not political parties vying for power but ordinary Cambodians.”

Logos: (logic) By the end of the paper, it seems eccentric that we would not give this country money to help them. He carefully addressed the main concern: that Cambodians would use the monetary gift only to uphold their corrupt government, and helped the reader see why this argument is such a ridiculous one.

Sufficient: Yes; he picked his main points of argument from the beginning and fully addressed those issues.

Typical: Yes; to anyone educated in this field the argument is feasible and noteworthy.

Accurate: He could have used more facts and citations to support his arguments, but the ones he used were good.

Relevant: He was writing to the conference committee, and kept that in mind all through the paper. He never talked about issues of the argument (such as the taxes this might raise for a common citizen) that were not pertaining to the audience.

Effect: I think the overall effect of this argument was successful and intriguing. I think the reader would be encouraged to at least give the subject more careful thought, if not have a total sway of opinion.