當前位置:首頁>案例中心>Assignment代寫案例>Comparative Rhetorical Analysis代寫范文

Comparative Rhetorical Analysis代寫范文

發布時間:2020-06-21 14:54:09 閱讀:1347

案例簡介

  • 作者:致遠教育
  • 導讀:本文是一篇ComparativeRhetoricalAnalysis代寫范文,本文的比較修辭分析旨在分析達姆比薩的外援差和斯蒂芬的外援好兩篇文章。范文內容和格式僅供留學生參考學習,不得抄襲,如有代寫需要,請來聯系網站客服。
  • 字數:1755 字
  • 預計閱讀時間:5分鐘

案例詳情

本文是一篇Comparative Rhetorical Analysis代寫范文, 本文的比較修辭分析旨在分析達姆比薩的外援差和斯蒂芬的外援好兩篇文章。范文內容和格式僅供留學生參考學習,不得抄襲,如有代寫需要,請來聯系網站客服。

Comparative Rhetorical Analysis代寫范文

This comparative rhetorical analysis aims to analyze two articles, Dambisa’s foreign aid is bad and Stephen’s foreign aid is good. This paper supports Dambisa’s foreign aid is bad and argues that foreign aid is bad for poor countries. Primarily, this paper will analyze this issue from the perspective of link between claims and evidences. In actual, to prove the argument that foreign aid is useless and even harmful, data about aid funds and poor countries’ development are used by Dambisa while Stephen fails in doing this. Moreover, this paper will discuss this issue from the perspective of logical fallacies. In reality, some logical fallacies exist in Stephen’s article. In final, although Stephen has listed and analyzed counterarguments, he could not use enough evidences to refute them while Dambisa do. Wholly, this paper considers that Dambisa’s article is more convincing.

本文的比較修辭分析旨在分析達姆比薩的外援差和斯蒂芬的外援好兩篇文章。本文支持丹比薩的對外援助是不好的,認為對外援助對窮國是不好的。本文主要從權利要求與證據的聯系這一角度來分析這一問題。實際上,為了證明外國援助毫無用處甚至有害的論點,達米薩使用了有關援助資金和窮國發展的數據,而斯蒂芬沒有這樣做。此外,本文將從邏輯謬誤的角度來探討這一問題。實際上,斯蒂芬的文章中存在一些邏輯謬誤。最后,雖然斯蒂芬列舉并分析了反證,但他無法像達姆比薩那樣用足夠的證據來反駁??傊?,本文認為達姆比薩的文章更有說服力。

In foreign aid is bad, the author aims to argue that foreign aid is bad. The intended audiences of this article are those who are interested in foreign aid and global poverty. The intended audiences of this article could also be those who believe that foreign aid is good (Moyo, 2014). The author points out that foreign aid are ineffective and would cause further poverty of these countries. To support this main argument, Dambisa argues that failure of foreign aid is caused by three main problems, its core assumptions have some defect, its overall history of implementation is problematic and it has had egregious results (Moyo,2014). To clarify his claims, Dambisa uses some facts and data. Dambisa uses historic fact of Edmund Burke blamed the revolutionary enthusiasm of the French Revolution to support the claim that the world is complicated and the assumption that foreign aid is moral may be wrong. And then, Dambisa uses the data of African GDP to show that there has no link between foreign aid and African economic development. By researching on GDP of Africa in 1970 and 1995, Dambisa illustrates that foreign fund aid could not enhance economic development of Africa obviously and effectively (Moyo, 2014). Later, to attack the assumption that all that is needed is a great motivation of funds aid for countries to get rid of poverty, Dambisa uses the data of poverty rate of African countries and funds spent on foreign aid. By showing these data, Dambisa proves that although billions of funds are put into foreign aid, poverty rate of poor countries does not decrease obviously (Moyo, 2014).

在外援不好的問題上,筆者旨在論證外援是不好的。本文的目標讀者是那些對外國援助和全球貧困感興趣的人。本文的目標讀者也可能是那些認為外國援助是好的(Moyo,2014)。作者指出,對外援助是無效的,會使這些國家進一步陷入貧困。為了支持這一主要論點,Dambisa認為,外援失敗是由三個主要問題造成的,其核心假設存在一些缺陷,其總體實施歷史存在問題,并取得了令人震驚的結果(Moyo,2014)。為了澄清他的說法,達姆比薩使用了一些事實和數據。達姆比薩利用埃德蒙·伯克的歷史事實,指責法國大革命的革命熱情,支持世界是復雜的說法,認為外國援助是道德的假設可能是錯誤的。然后,達姆比薩利用非洲國內生產總值的數據表明,外國援助與非洲經濟發展之間沒有任何聯系。通過對1970年和1995年非洲國內生產總值的研究,Dambisa表明,外資援助并不能明顯有效地促進非洲經濟發展(Moyo,2014)。后來,達姆比薩利用非洲國家的貧困率和用于對外援助的資金數據,抨擊了這樣一種假設,即所需要的一切都是資助各國擺脫貧困的巨大動力。通過展示這些數據,Dambisa證明,盡管投入了數十億資金用于對外援助,但窮國的貧困率并沒有明顯下降(Moyo,2014)。

By comparison, in foreign aid is good, Stephen fails in matching evidence to his claims. In the article, Stephen aims to argue that foreign aid is good. The intended audiences are those who think that foreign aid is bad and doubt about effect of foreign aid. Stephen claims that aid is critical and several facts are noted (Lewis, 2014). However, he does not use enough evidences to prove his claims. To prove the claim that aid is critical, Stephen does not show reliable data that foreign aid is effective but only show that what impacts would generate without foreign aid. In illustrating the claim that several facts are noted, Stephen only list data of funds cost in foreign aid but could not provide enough evidence to prove relationship between foreign aid and economic development of poor countries (Lewis, 2014).

Additionally, Stephen’s foreign aid is good has some logical fallacies. In his argument, to support his view that foreign aid is good, Stephen does not focus on how foreign aid work, how foreign improve poor countries’ economy and provide some suggestions for long-term foreign aid work (Lewis, 2014). Nevertheless, Stephen only provides some facts, like many people are suffering poverty in the world, many people still alive and aid funds are put into foreign aid continuously. Stephen fails in stating relationship between foreign aid and improved development of poor countries.

Differently, in another article, Dambisa uses some evident data and facts to prove his argument. Dambisa illustrates that for years, many funds have been put in foreign aid and global poverty does not improved obviously. What’s worse, Dambisa uses data and case in Africa to claim that foreign aid would even result in excessive dependence on foreign aid for poor countries. Wholly, in his article, Dambisa illustrates his arguments clearly and logically, which is much better than Stephen’s foreign aid is good.

In final, in analyzing and criticizing counterarguments, Dambisa is more successful than Stephen. Although Stephen has listed and analyzed the counterarguments, he could not use enough evidences to refute them. In the article, Stephen states that foreign aid is not failure, link between economic growths is not complex and there is a clear free market romanticism of the counterarguments (Moyo, 2014). However, Stephen could not provide any data or evident fact to refute counterarguments. What he uses to refute counterarguments are only objective illustration and farfetched explanations.

Compared with Stephen, Dambisa is much better in refuting and criticizing counterarguments. Initially, Dambisa uses data to show that nowadays, poverty situation does not change obviously in relation to foreign aid, which powerfully refute counterargument that foreign aid could improve poor countries’ development. Most importantly, Dambisa respectively and concretely analyzes problems in argument that foreign aid is good. Not only does Dambisa use available references and evident facts to deny those assumptions, but also Dambisa even discovers deep reasons that cause failure of foreign aid. Dambisa reveals that foreign aid would only cause economic dependence of poor countries and waste aid funds.

This paper makes comparative rhetorical analysis of two articles, Dambisa’s foreign aid is bad and Stephen’s foreign aid is good. This paper argues that Dambisa’s article is more convincing and supports the argument that foreign aid is bad. In actual, from several perspectives, including credibility and logics, this paper discovers that Dambisa’s article is better.     

Reference

Lewis, S. (2014). Foreign Aid is Good. Discussion of poverty. 5 (2), 1-4.

Moyo, D. (2014). Foreign Aid is Bad. Analysis of global situation. 3(2), 1-3.

以上就是這篇Assignment代寫范文全部內容,歡迎參考。如有代寫需要,請聯系網站客服。

其他案例

911国产在线观看无码专区