This article argues that globalisation is bad for impoverished people. The author, Oxfam, argues that the process of globalisation is redistributing the wealth in the wrong direction. One quote I found very interesting is the UN secretary general saying half the world has never used a telephone, much less a computer. This was very intriguing. Oxfam goes on to state that basically the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Oxfam also clarifies that this is in fact economically inefficient. Oxfam displays that the global market is neither good nor bad for poverty reduction although it is a system that creates winners and losers. Oxfam presents the example of Bangladesh, where thousands of jobs were created due to exports. Oxfam unveils that many rich governments that value free trade are at the same time are ripping off poor countries through protectionist barriers "cost developing countries an estimated $700 bn a year". The numbers are staggering. Oxfam discusses that aid is not the solution for these impoverished countries, the solution is to establish trade so these countries can become self sufficient. Like the saying "you can feed some one dinner for a night, or give them a fishing pole and teach them to fish". Oxfam suggests that we examine the patterns that this globalisation has created and change them to attempt to meet the 2015 targets, which is some British goal of lessened poverty. Oxfam goes on to say that Britain is a very fit country to lead this war on poverty because it is very centered in the world economy. Personally i think the gist of this argument is that we must eliminate greed from our world economy so we may better help the poor people of the world.

What reasons in the article the US was wrong could be used in both sides of the argument?
Right:- The mention of kamikaze plane attacks on the US forces.
- The Japanese mentality of "death before surrender".
-The true power that the militarists had in the Japanese government.
Wrong:- The US did not clarify the terms of a conditional surrender.
-US joint chief of staff stating that Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender.
-The quote from secretary of state Byrnes somewhat predicting the cold war.
-The fact that the president waited for the successfully test of the first a-bomb before meeting with Stalin.
-The fact that dropping the bomb gave the US a "MasterCard of diplomacy".

The main reason Connor thinks the US was right to drop the atomic bomb was that it was the solution to the war that saved the most American lives. He also argues that it actually saved more Japanese lives as well. His specific reasons involved many statistics including one that stated that a Japanese force of 15,000 was reduced to 17 on a specific island and they were still fighting. Fight to the death was the Japanese mentality. Connor argued that an invasion of the home land would result in many unnecessary Japanese deaths. Connor also appealed to his readers hearts with a vivid description of Japanese mothers killing their babies and jumping off cliffs to their death as the American forces drew near. Connor also states that although perhaps the emperor wanted peace, the militarists of the Japanese government had the real power.Connors argument was some what convincing yet because he held a position in the US military I believe that his argument was less than trustworthy. Questions for leading discussion: 1) Do you think it was necessary for the US to drop the second atomic bomb? 2) Did you find Connors gruesome imagery was effective for his argument? 3) Do you think that some of his statistics were exaggerated? 4) Did you think Connor took in to account the toll of the A-bomb after math in his argument?

What is an Enthymeme? The relationship between two or more assertions, more specifically the connection between reasons and conclusions. The mixture of ideas in such a way that there are reasons supporting the conclusion. In the seperation of reasons and conclusions it is clear that you can almost always imply either "because" or "therefore" in between the assertions. Which one all depends on the of the ideas. Enthymemes can be broken down into a conclusion, an assumption, and a stated reason.


Example of an Enthymeme: The bull should not be allowed in the china shop. It is almost certain that he will destroy all the valuables in and around his path.

A question at issue is an idea that is worth arguing to a particular or general audience. A thesis is an argument of any topic. In a written argumentitive essay, the writer would express his position on the question at issue through a thesis statement. Example of question at issue: Should illegal aliens be allowed to vote? Example of thesis: Because of global warming, the United States should take steps to protect the habitat of polar bears.