The purpose of this article is to compare the
United States Army to a corporation.
In addition to that, the author, James Surowiecki of the New Yorker,
argues that the newest fad (well new in 2004, which was ten years ago) for the
government was outsourcing. But on
the other hand, Surowiecki argues that to do things “in house” (1) is easier
and more efficient.
The audience of this article would be anyone
willing to read it. Having been
published in the New Yorker, a very distinguished weekly magazine, the audience
would be intelligent and social, economic, and political aware
individuals.
Surowiecki uses a plethora of techniques
including ethos and logos. This
voice is well represented in this piece through its enticing language and the
hook of his opening statement. Also,
his last sentence really wraps up his argument nicely.
He uses a multitude of facts and bits of
common sense. He is a credible
source, being a writer for a very dignified and old magazine.
Published on January 12, 2004, this article
was written well before the economic crash of 2008 and during the presidency of
George W. Bush and in the height of U.S. involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan. At that point in
time, the United States military was very strong and crucial to the national
defense.
Some of Surowiecki’s claims include comparing
the United States Army to company like General Motors and that, “outsourcing
works well when there;s genuine competition among suppliers – that’s when the
virtues of the private sector come into play” (2).
The language of this article really improves Surowiecki’s
already excellent argument. One
good example from the first page is, “the Army becomes a lean, mean killing
machine” (1). This is funny and
also accurate because that’s exactly what the Army does – it’s supposed to kill
those who try to breach the national security of the United States. The title is also a great play on
words, Army Inc. This starts Surowiecki’s
claim that the Army works like a company, which means that it's out to make a
profit and benefit those involved in the process.
Sophia, while your content is solid here and your thinking is good, you've structured this like an outline. We need an essay. So, from this awesome outline you've done, pick one or two things to focus on. Write a thesis that shows a connection between a major claim and a technique. Then show us how that connection works in the article.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make sense? So this should have a short intro ending with a specific and arguable thesis, body paragraphs that develop an idea (connecting the what with the how) and a one-sentence conclusion.