http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-46-billion-in-pentagon-cuts-shouldnt-make-us-less-safe/273408/
On February 22nd, The Atlantic posted an
article on the cuts being made on the Pentagon’s budget. The author writes
against those who say that the $46 billion dollar cuts will weaken the U.S.
military forces. He starts by describing and quoting what these people say
regarding the cuts and then explains that they make “cuts to their budget seem
scary”. He gives statistics to show that even with this lowering of the budget
the U.S. will still be spending more than it had been during the Cold War.
Other charts show that the U.S. spends more than several times the amount of
money other countries invest in their own military and has many more air craft
carriers than those of several countries combined. One of the reasons the
author says these officials are against the cuts is because “many people in the
upper echelons of the military-industrial complex are corrupt”. He then ends by
saying that if $46 billion dollars in cuts is enough to threaten national
security, then the military is really in the need of improvements.
The author’s purpose in writing this article was to
persuade his audience that these on the military budget are not going to
massively harm the U.S. national security. His main strategy is using
statistics to exemplify how these changes will affect the military compared to
previous years and to the investment other countries do in this department. He
uses hypophoras and establishes common ground with the readers when he says
that what the officials say seem to make the cuts appear to be extremely
harmful.
I think you did a great job of explaining what the article was about in a detailed yet quick manner. You explained important facts that the author stated in his article. Also, your second paragraph shows clearly what the author was trying to do with the reader.
ReplyDelete