Discourse analysis of an article in a Washington paper on migrant workers healthcare.
"In the 24 years since President Ronald Reagan signed immigration reform granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants, a generation of farmworkers has helped make Washington tree fruit a $2.5 billion industry." (Graman) Focuses here in his first paragraph that undocumented immigrant amnesty of 24 years ago is part of the reason the fruit tree industry grew to $2.5 billion dollars much as the use of those workers may have helped to achieve that level of gain they are not the sole factor and he fails to show any actual statistics to prove his reasoning thus focusing attention away from the other factors that were involved in making an industry grow. These workers according to the article are now retiring and being replaced by younger workers that half of which are "believed" to be here illegally. This assumption however possible has little actual proof to back it up.
One person interviewed claims "They are the people putting food on our table," said Carol McCormick, supervisor for outreach for Columbia Valley Community Health. "Many are undocumented. They are afraid." This statement is not directly true it is one used to lead the reader into being sympathetic or biased towards the point the author is trying to make. Last time I checked I put my own food on my table I don't recall anyone else doing it for me. You can see how the words can easily be twisted to form a bias in one direction or another.
The Author of the article goes on to focus on several other situations during this Migrant clinic to keep the reader focused on the plight of these farmworkers. We then arrive at this statement. "When they arrive in the United States, they are very healthy," said Lilia Gomez, an outreach coordinator for the Washington Association of Community and Migrant Health Clinics who has been coming to health fairs for the past six years.
The workers are young and their nutrition has been well balanced, despite a general lack of health care.
"Probably for the first 10 years that they are working here, they are being very productive without using any services at all," Gomez said.
Although the source has credibility the statements are a fallacy of contradiction. First she claims there healthy then she claims they are probably never seen in a clinic for the first 10 years they are here. How could any of that be documented there starting health? There health over the course of 10 years? However the article does go onto to point out that several farmworkers were interviewed and they claim the problems begin when they start working here and that our horrible food and there working conditions are the cause for the degrading health. This may be true but there isn't sufficient evidence to back it up other than a few interviews.
The remainder of the article shows us actual costs and the means available for these workers to seek medical care pretty strait facts like one family might pay $25 dollars for an office visit based on their annual income and household size. I neither agree nor disagree with the articles view point but I do feel it lends nothing to the real issue at hand. There are many underlying issues that would have to be addressed first, Like how immigration should be handled and who should be responsible for providing insurance for the workers etc…
Interesting work here. A few pointers:
ReplyDelete1) I appreciate your fine-grained analysis of the author, especially your application of the
Toulmin model. Nicely done. I would have been better situated, as a reader, if your write-up had also included a summary of the article (it's gist) up front. This would have helped me better understand the conversation you were entering into.
2) WA talks about reading both with and against the grain, and it's mostly the latter that I'm seeing here. You do well with it. But by incorporating more of the former, as well, you would better convince me (as an academic reader who prefers nuance) that you're analysis was well-balanced (as opposed to biased). This is important work, because even as you assess the words of others, you're also trying to convince your readers that you're both reasonable and credible.
3) Some of the sentences were a little unclear, and I think this might be because you're writing in a new mode (new genre). Try finessing the sentence-level language a bit more. Write in your own voice. :)
Overall, a solid job. Make sure to apply my feedback as you complete the entry due Wednesday (also, for the reading due Wednesday you'll want to use Wysocki's model for analysis). Keep up the hard work.