The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Go Hungry by Sharon Astyk and Aaron Newton - Critical Essay

Introduction

In the essay The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Go Hungry Sharon Astyk and Aaron Newton assert that the leading causes and origin of hunger in the world are not food shortages, drought, or floods but the poor policies and economic decisions. They claim that most people sleep hungry or die of hunger in both poor and rich countries, but their market is filled with excess food. They argue that the world produces more food that can feed the whole population, but the problem lies in how the food is accessed and the decisions made by the rich against the poor who are starving. Excess food is always exported while the poor are suffering. According to Newton and Astyk, the decisions made by wealthy individuals who consist of politicians have a direct impact on the county's population and living standards.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

This essay can be classified as a "refuting the opposing view" because it adduces evidence to back up its allegations and claims. The piece is validated by the presence of clear justifications and evidence that contradicts the current notion that hunger is caused by drought, crop diseases, flood, and locusts. For instance, they claim that the decision of exporting surplus food instead of helping the poor who are starving is one of the causes of hunger across the nation. They support their opinion by giving well-researched evidence;

Inequity and politics, not food shortages, were at the root of almost all famines in the 20th century. Brazil, for example, exported $20 billion worth of food in 2002, while millions of its people went hungry. During Ethiopian famines in the 1980s, the country also exported food (Astyk & Newton 2010).

Claims of Fact

Claims of fact provide that a way of thinking or judgment is drawn from inferring the factual information of an existing, historical or a future condition (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). The facts should be statements that can be proved through its existence such as the number of lawyers in a courtroom. Verification of facts should be from reliable authority, accurate and well-tested data. The facts should also be distinguished from an inference because inference refers to an opinion arrived at after evaluation of existing evidence.

Claims of Value

Claims of value refer to the judgment made based on an evaluation that relies on likes and dislikes, tastes, morality, and preferences. Claims of value are generally not relevant in an argumentative essay; however the question of morality and aesthetics always present disagreements (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Aesthetics or the study of fine arts and beauty gauges the value in works of art such as drama, dance, books, paintings, movies, and architecture, whereas morality defines the judgments based on the rightness or wrongness of culture, belief or conduct.

Claims of Policy

Claims of policy dictate whether specific actions, policies, and courses should, must or ought to exist. These claims are based on the features of claims of facts and claims of value (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Claims of policy are essential when solving problems and solutions need to be based on the adoption of specific courses or policies. For these policies to be adopted, they must illustrate that they are beneficial, achievable, justified and clear after considering the pros and cons.

Evidence for Claims

The evidence is used in arguments to validate claims, and it gives support for the reasons presented to convince the audience to accept the claims (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). There are different types of evidence, and it varies from one argument or academic research to another. For instance, legal evidence differs from scientific evidence, but they all serve the same purpose which is to answer the challenges and counterarguments to the reasons presents.

Evidence can be in the form of narratives, case studies, or examples and are used to build support for specific claims or reasons (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). When used during speeches, these types of evidence inform how an idea is illustrated. They are used to represent the bigger idea that they are trying to support. Other types of evidence involve the use of statistics that range from the application of raw numbers (11 guests were present in the party), statistical probabilities (swimming in deep waters increases the chances of drowning to amateur swimmers by 30%), averages, and statistical trends. The use of statistics as evidence presents an argument in an objective, factual and authoritative manner, but the audience must be informed on how the statistics were arrived at to be validated (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Evidence may also be used as testimony during the court process or appeals to higher authority, and they vary from expert evidence or eyewitness evidence (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Eyewitness evidence gives the audience a feel of the real experience. Expert testimony on the other hand relies on direct experience that is supported by training, methods, and formal knowledge. For instance, a doctor testifying in a court about the side effects of a drug. Evidence in the form of appeals to authority must be addressed to qualified persons who have the right to engage on such topics.

Evaluation of Evidence

The ability to evaluate evidence is an essential skill for both students and researchers. There are several styles and techniques of assessing evidence especially for the literature review where critical analysis and evaluation of evidence is needed. The origins of the source such as who produced it and where does it come from are essential because they stamp credential on the evidence in terms of value and status. The origin of the evidence identifies the authors, source of information, and the body sponsoring the information (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Some of the critical aspects of the author that should be considered are whether they works are respected, or they are acknowledged experts in such fields, how often are their works cited, and whether their views are controversial or not. It is also essential to establish whether the sponsoring body is a voluntary organization, commercial entity, research organization or statutory authority. The publication of the evidence also matters and is essential to establish whether the published evidence has been peer reviewed (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014).

The evidence should be relevant to the scope of research being carried. Relevance should be based on geographical dimensions, emphasis, and the level of information, is it too basic, general, detailed or specialized. Objectivity of the evidence also plays a crucial role in evaluation, and the reader is mandated to draw a critical review of the evidence when interpreting the information. When determining the objectivity of the evidence, some of the factors to take into consideration are the language used, the opinions of the author, perspectives and the body sponsoring the evidence (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). The methods in evidence should also be evaluated to determine whether they are error-free, free from bias and meet certain standards. The presentation and timeliness of the evidence affect how we perceive evidence. It is not a requirement that all evidence must be up to date.

Warrant and Assumptions in an Argument

In a contentious setting, warrants are used to win an argument. The use of warrants involves making appropriate claims that are based on facts and reasoning (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Whenever someone claims in an argument, it should be supported with valid reasons and data. The reasons behind the claim should be relevant to avoid disagreement. Warrants help validate an argument whether it is in writing, debate or giving a speech.

Warrants are essential in an argument because they explain how the stated reasons are connected and support the claim. People making claims always characterize literature reviews, scientific researches, social sciences, debates, public opinions, and speeches, and therefore it is vital to incorporate warrants that link the claims to valid reasons. There are two different types of warrants, explicit and implicit. Explicit warrants are clearly defined when making claims, while implicit warrants are unstated in the claims as is with the case with most advertising (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Warrants are not clearly stated in arguments, but in cases where arguments are not accepted, then warrants play a role in explaining the reasoning that informs a claim.

The difference between warrants and assumptions is that warrants are inferred by the party who is presenting an argument while different parties make assumptions based on the argument (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). However, the terms assumptions and warrants are used interchangeably to imply the reasons that support a claim in an argument. Acceptability of warrants varies depending on cultures, beliefs, practices, and even generations but the notion that a warrant is either valid or invalid is wrong.

Rogerian Argument

Unlike the traditional arguments that are characterized by winning, a Rogerian argument involves a negotiation strategy where common and opposing opinions or statements are identified and formulated objectively to achieve a common ground (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). The Rogerian argument assumes that both the writer and reader can find a solution to a common problem by finding common ground to a problem. The Rogerian argument is structured differently from the traditional arguments, as it starts by presenting the problem in the introduction part. The writer then describes the reader's point of view of the problem, after which the writer gives their perspective based on valid reasons. Finally, the Rogerian argument proposes a variety of ways towards achieving a common ground between the writer and reader (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014).

Toulmin's Model

Toulmin's model of argumentation was invented by Stephen Toulmin who provides that there are six different ways of analyzing an argument to support the points for and against a given argument objectively. These elements include a warrant, claims, qualifier, grounds, rebuttal, and backing and they help in evaluating the validity of an argument (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Toulmin's model helps both writers and readers to analyze arguments that have no clear solutions to specific problems.

Syllogism

The word syllogism is derived from the Greek which means to infer and represents a kind of reasoning that involves inferring a conclusion from a major and a minor premise (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). The writer makes a general statement from an argument referred to as a major premise, while the minor premise includes a specific example inferred from the major premise. A syllogism is said to be valid when the conclusion is based on the two premises, and the information is true (Schiappa & Nordin, 2014). Knowing and understanding syllogism is essential because it helps writers and readers construct conclusions based on the general statements and examples derived from an argument.

References

Astyk, S., & Newton, A. (2010). The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Go Hungry. UTNE Reader. Retrieved from https://www.utne.com/environment/starvation-food-shortage-inequity-politics-poor

Schiappa, E., & Nordin, J. P. (2014). Argumentation: Keeping faith with reason. London: Pearson.