Hello,
I have to writing a persuasive essay about "the poorhouse". In the story, the author, Judy Rebick, asks "If your children were going hungry, would you risk a fraud conviction to get the money to feed them?".
So, I need to defend Rebick's position or argue against it. But I have now ideas where to start.
Please help me to start off. Make sure you provide your own arguments (statistics, examples, facts, personal stories...) to persuade your audience.
I'm very appreciated if someone could help me on this essay.
What is Rebick's position? You say that she asks the question, not that she gives an answer. What is her answer? Do you agree or disagree? Why? Once you have your arguments for or against, you can look for supporting evidence.
Hi Simone,
Thanks for your reply.
Honestly, I'm not sure what her position is. She asks a question and doesn't mention the real answer. I guess she says "yes". I found two sentences come after the question that may close to the answer:
"Poor women are becoming more desperate and when they get in trouble, they can't afford to defend themselves. And reductions to legal aid to the litany of cutbacks that hit poor people the hardest."
I have started writing the introduction, but I need a stronger thesis statement. Please help me to give more ideas for this essay to against or depend Rebick's position.
Poverty is a social violence capable of disabling individuals by destroying self-esteem, damaging health, and eliminating hope. Although poverty intersects all ages, races and both genders, women are overrepresented in the ranks of the poor. Unfortunately, poor women often have no recourse other than to access the resources provided by the welfare system. What if the welfare not enough to feed their family and there is no other legal resources to support them. In "The Poorhouse", Judy Rebick asks "If your children were going hungry, would you risk a fraud conviction to get the money to feed them?" Reading over the essay for many times and putting myself in the position of a poor woman, I found it is not necessary to risk a fraud conviction to get the money to feed my children. In my opinion, there are many reasons that a poor woman should not commit to crime as I am going to explain in this essay.
It all depends on the article and the assignment. If If the author is simply explaining why impoverished women sometimes feel compelled to commit fraud and asking the reader, "what would you do?" then your job is to answer that question.
If, however, the author actually takes the position that fraud is sometimes justified by this particular set of extenuating circumstances, then your job (as you have begun to do) is to argue for or against that thesis. The idea that the fraud is justified would be based on a variation of the necessity defense in law. People may sometimes commit acts that would be illegal otherwise if compelled by necessity to do so, with the most common example being breaking down a door in order to save someone from a fire.
You seem to be arguing that the necessity defense does not apply here because there are other options. If that is your thesis, then you need to state it clearly and then support it with evidence of those other options.
You might also look at what types of fraud the essayist believes are permissible, and why fraud should be considered acceptable yet outright force should not. Of course, the essayist may also believe that violent crime should be an acceptable alternative, in which case you could discuss that, too. Certainly, if you are taking the position that the poor should not resort to crime, then you should look at how fraud can be seen merely as an extension of force, as most people react more negatively to the idea of violence in crime than to the idea of trickery.
Thank Simone and Sean,
After reading your comments, I think I should have changed my position in the opposite side. Now I got more ideas to depend Rebick's position. And I decide to focus on that position.
Simone: your example of saving people from fire convinces me. Thanks.
Sean: The poor woman in Rebick's essay committed to welfare fraud.
Could you please give me more ideas and example, as well as any statistics and links of sources.
Thanks and regards,
You should try to come up with some ideas on your own. Start by asking yourself questions, and then trying to think through the answers:
1. What would happen to the welfare system if everyone who used it engaged in fraud? (Kant's categorical imperative).
2. Why is fraud normally considered wrong?
3. What, if anything, about the condition of being poor would render the principles upon which fraud is generally considered wrong invalid?
4. As you found Simone's example so convincing, you might ask yourself what parallels exist between that example and the case of the woman who committed welfare fraud. What would the owner of the door likely think of it being broken down to save someone in the room behind it (especially if he was that person)? What would the "owner" of the welfare system think of its being defrauded?
The answers you come up with to these questions will be the raw ideas you need for your essay, and will tend to suggest other examples and analogies you can draw on to support your thesis.
