TOW #19: Article (How to Make the World $600 Billion Poorer)

Reading Goal: Take the time to understand a writing sample from a genre (economics) that usually bores me.
Writing Goal: Thoroughly explain how the article's writing strategies make it more effective.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596934-barack-obamas-unwillingness-fight-free-trade-expensive-mistake-how-make-world


Making trade agreements is easier when Congress is only allowed to vote yes or no, and can't pick the agreement apart. This "fast-track" deal with Congress was given to President Bush from 2002 to 2007; Obama's administration has yet to renew it. With a major trade opportunity on the line, the absence of a fast-track deal may bring the whole thing crashing down, argues the author of The Economist article "How to Make the World $600 Billion Poorer." Unfortunately the author is unidentified, which damages the article's credibility, but the fact that it is written in a well-known publication like The Economist is enough to redeem it. "How to Make the World $600 Billion Poorer" is effective mainly because of its reader-friendly argument shape. Loosely following the classical oration style, it has an introduction, background information, claim, counterargument, and conclusion.

The author structures the argument clearly, which helps guide a less knowledgeable reader like myself through the article without getting lost. It begins with a simple thesis statement: If Obama does not stand up to his party, the author argues, "it will [...] be a signal that America is giving up its role as defender of an open global economy." Such a straightforward statement allows me to look for evidence in the rest of the article, which makes me engage with and therefore better understand the text. The reader is then given background information on the subject, which is again helpful if they are unfamiliar. In a separate section with a new heading, the author begins to describe the perceived problem. By distinctly separating those two parts, the author facilitates the reader's  by setting up a sort of checkpoint to make sure the reader thoroughly understands the basics before moving on. Just before the conclusion, the author conveys the urgency of the issue by answering their own question, "Why panic about this?" In a classically structured argument, this would take the place of the counterargument section in that it anticipates and responds to readers' thoughts.

This article is effective in informing and persuading its audience because its structure makes it so easy to comprehend. It is especially effective with readers like me who have no prior knowledge of the situation and whose opinions can therefore be manipulated easily. By following classical oration, the author was able to communicate with a wider audience than just economically informed readers of The Economist.