On Toulmin's Argument In Raise Wages, Not Walls

986 Words4 Pages

When writing an argument, it is always helpful to observe whether others argue effectively or ineffectively depending on their reasoning. The Toulmin method of analysis, based on the philosopher Stephen Toulmin, is a way to analyzing a written argumentative piece, with a deeper thinking responding to that particular argument and give a better understanding of the explanation given. In the excerpt Raise Wages, Not Walls the argument being discussed is that building walls won't approach the problem of illegal immigration correctly, because there are always ways around it or loopholes, but to instead raise minimum wages and reduce low paying jobs. So why waste the money and labor on building ineffective walls, when there is another solution to better the problem with illegal immigration in this country.
The general idea or claim of this argumentative piece is that building a wall in order for the immigrants not to get through has a lot of flaws and won't work as the Congress think it would. …show more content…

Which leads to the rebuttal of the argumentative piece, “Curiously, most members of Congress who take a hard line on immigration also strongly oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming it will hurt businesses and reduce jobs” (Dukakis & Mitchell, 2006). Nonetheless the authors have an exception to this rebuttal, that is if “We want to reduce illegal immigration, it makes sense to reduce the abundance of extremely low-paying jobs that fuels it. If we raise the minimum wage, it’s possible some low- end jobs may be lost; but more Americans would also be willing to work in such jobs, thereby denying them to people who aren’t supposed to be here in the first place” Assuming that most american citizens are going to work, they would take up all the jobs provided out there, assuming that the minimum wage went up and they would be payed better (Dukakis & Mitchell,

Show More
Open Document