2. Use the summarising strategy below as your structure:
Argumentation Pattern— text that attempts to support a claim. This pattern contains the following elements:
- Evidence: Information that leads to a claim
- Claim: The assertion that something is true
- Support: Examples of or explanations for the claim
- Qualifier: A restriction on the claim or evidence counter to the claim
ILLUSTRATION 2.3: THE ARGUMENTATION FRAME
Passage: Highway Driving
Driving a car in this state has become a huge problem. The highways are so crowded that it takes twice as long to get where you want to go. It's a real mess. As far as I'm concerned, the source of the problem is the unrestrained growth policies of the last two administrations.
The governor and his supporters led the parade of developers and short-sighted business owners who sold citizens on the idea that economic growth and new jobs would benefit the state and that a state either “grows or dies.” Whenever environmental protection bills were introduced in the legislature that seemed to put restraints on businesses, the governor argued against them and, when necessary, vetoed them.
Over the last five years, so many businesses and people have moved into the state that the population has doubled. There's not much room for growth in the downtown areas of the state's major cities, so developers have bought up thousands of acres of what used to be beautiful farm land. Now people have to commute long distances to their jobs, making the highways jam-packed with vehicles almost all day long. I suppose one reason so many people and businesses have moved here is that our state is beautiful. Plus, states farther west were — and still are — so crowded and polluted that this state's relatively open spaces and clean air looked like heaven to many people.
Frame Questions:
What information is presented that leads to a claim? Highways are crowded.
What claim does the author make about a problem or situation? What does he or she assert is so? Growth policies of former administration caused the problem.
What examples or explanations does the author present to support this claim? Governor vetoed environmental protection laws that would have restrained growth a little. He sold us on the idea that growth was good.
What restrictions or explanations does the author present to support his or her claim? But we have a beautiful, less polluted state — so that's appealing to people.
Summary: The population has doubled, and people commute long distances, making the highways very crowded. The former governor caused the problem. He vetoed laws that would have restricted growth a little and sold us on the idea that growth would be a good thing. But our state is beautiful and less polluted than others, so that might be one reason so many people have moved here.
Inconvenient advice for a business-friendly prime minister
3 Comments
Michael Mullins | 07 July 2013
Michael Mullins | 07 July 2013
One of Kevin Rudd's key points of difference with Julia Gillard lies in his determination to project a business-friendly image for himself and the ALP, which may have something to do with his decision to dump former parliamentary secretary Andrew Leigh from the front bench. Although Leigh was a Gillard backer, he is a former ANU economist who is regarded as Australia's leading inequality expert and unsympathetic to the demands of big business on government.
Coincidentally he has just published a book targeting income inequality, Battlers and Billionaires: The Story of Inequality in Australia. In media interviews during the week, he pointed out that since the 1970s, 'we've seen the top 1 per cent double, we've seen about $400 billion shifted from the bottom 99 per cent to the top 1 per cent. CEO salaries have gone from an average of $1 million to $3 million in the top hundred firms, and we've seen stratospheric increase in consumption in the things the super-rich enjoy, like waterfront homes, Porches, Maseratis, even cocaine.'
When John Howard introduced WorkChoices in 2005, he argued that a prosperous business sector would produce more jobs and benefits for ordinary Australians. Leigh says that while inequality does boost economic growth and the nation's GDP, the increased wealth does not trickle down to those at the bottom to any significant extent. His view is that inequality is socially divisive and demands serious policy attention.
Increasingly it is recognised as a public health issue, and that it demands a political response. Epidemiologist Robert Douglas ponders the political implications of our comparatively high levels of mental disorder, suicide, lack of trust, mortality, communal violence and teenage pregnancy. 'Could the preoccupation of the Coalition with deregulation of labour markets and market solutions make matters worse? And could the Australian Labor Party, with its traditional concern for equity and redistribution, make things better?'
Other epidemiologists have contributed to the debate, most notably Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their controversial 2009 popular academic work The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, which was based on a study of the top and bottom 20 per cent of income earners in 21 rich developed market economies. They found that 'bigger income differences lead to bigger social distances up and down the status hierarchy, increasing feelings of superiority and inferiority and adding to status competition and insecurity. Some of the causal links are known: the effects of chronic stress on the immune and cardiovascular system.'
While Leigh has some doubts about such arguments, he is certain 'we need a government that has means-tested social security, that invests disproportionately in improving the education of the most disadvantaged, and which rigorously tests social programs ... using randomised trials, rather than just say-so and ideology'.
Possibly inconvenient advice for a business-friendly prime minister.
Inconvenient Advice – Argumentation Frame Summary
Argumentation Pattern — text that attempts to support a claim. This pattern contains the following elements:
1. Evidence: Information that leads to a claim
2. Claim: The assertion that something is true
3. Support: Examples of or explanations for the claim
4. Qualifier: A restriction on the claim or evidence counter to the claim
Evidence: $400 billion has been transferred from the bottom 99% of society to the top 1%
Claim: An over emphasis on business prosperity has led to economic inequality in Australia.
Support: Deregulation of the labour market in Australia could be responsible for the comparatively high social disorder rate – including mental illness, suicide, violence and pregnancy.
Qualifier: The argument has not been rigorously tested but it is certain the government needs to means test social security and invest further in the education of the poor.
Summary: As business has boomed in Australia, there has been a disproportionate increase in executive salaries in the top 1% of income earners at the expense of the remainder of society. Though untested, it is clear there is a direct link between comparative falling wage rates of the poor and the increase of social issues and problems in society. In addition, a disproportionate amount of government funding is spent on high income earners that needs to be directed to the poor.
3. Using possible answers strategy, map Buddhist and Christian responses to the issues raised by the media article.
Possible answers | |
Buddhist responses | Christian responses |
4. Answer the following question using the extent barometer strategy: To what extent should Buddhists respond to poverty and social inequities?
In the perspective column, list criteria that could be used to make such a judgement. Include beliefs, practices, common sense, logic and community barometers such as need and the common good.
No comments:
Post a Comment