Rasha Ghaddar

You Refute It Wrongly!

Success sequence is one track of the plenty life tracks, but is considered the most successful
one for a category in the American society, further others think that a person could be
successful in his life without following this sequence. This series organizes the most three
important events in our life in a way that education comes first then good job and money after
that marriage, and any disorganization will effect on your progress and success. In the article
“No, Young People Aren’t Poor Because They’re Not Married” that was written by “Melissa
Boteach” and “Anusha Ravi” and published in July 7,2017 at Talk Poverty journal, they are
critiquing the success sequence by opposing points of views and evidences. They argue about
this sequence showing it non beneficial, and all the disproportionate poverty cases are being
blamed for not having a high school diploma, a good job, and a spouse before they have kids.
So, in this text the writers attempt to show that the success sequence is wrong and it is just a
myth that doesn’t apply on real world, but they failed in that due to plenty causes like using
informal way, improper vocab and misinterpreting the opposing point of view…

In the poverty talk the authors claim that success in life from poverty doesn’t have any
relation with having high school diploma first, then a good job after that marriage and kids…
Since the percentage of educated people is increasing while the poverty of college educated
people is growing, so education isn’t a part of the magical ticket that keeps you away from
poverty. Also with the credentials and productivity growing but young people still couldn’t find
good jobs. Moreover the marriage of two poor people won’t get them up from their poorness,
and some relations could be abusive mainly for women but they stay in it under the pressure of
success sequence. Then the writers’ emphasis on their point by two main evidences that
contradicts the success sequence, that world economic reality regulation concentrates the
economic growth for wealthy people, this thing decreases the chance of poor people to
overcome their poverty and make an obstacle in the face of young people to be successful. Also
if you followed the success sequence perfectly you may face any kind of accident in your life
that distracts your success and almost you will. So, Will’s sequence is wrong myth and will
struggle many Americans.

In their article, the authors use weak logos that were full of defects. First, there were plenty of
logical fallacies and the most important one was straw man the opposing point view so it will be
easier to refute. Where by the concept of the success sequence depends on the order of events
not on achieving each one separately will achieve life success, but the writers fractioned them
into three separately events that has no connection with each other which change the concept
of the sequence, for example they treated education as a dingle cause for success: “the share of
people living in poverty who have some college education has grown dramatically…” But in fact
what the sequence means that in having education before work is better since you would get a
higher probability in having more advanced job because you received a certificate. Also, there is
much generalization in their argument: “Literally every aspect of the argument is dead
wrong...” where they generalized that every single aspect in the success sequence is wrong,
also when they proposed that women stay in an abuse relation just to be successful “Blinding
promoting marriage…places even more pressure on survivors to stay in an abusive marriage or
partnership”, which is absolutely wrong and there is other perspectives and causes for not
choosing breakup, also it is a false analogy in comparing these two things and reasoning them
in such a way. Moreover, they used a post hoc when relate the accidents that may be faced in
the daily life that cause disability and may cause poorness that will lead to unsuccessful so the
success sequence is inadequate for achieving success: “People lose jobs. They get sick or have
an accident that leaves them with a disable…” Furthermore, in their argument they used
general evidences “yet the voters…- didn’t specify which voters…” and few general statistics
without mentioning the source which decrease their credibility: “Seventy-seven percent of
people in poverty who have some college education has grown dramatically…Seventy percent
of Americans will turn to a means-tested benefit at some point during their working years…”
also they mentioned many general evidences and ideas that are irrelevant to the topic, in which
they treated each event separately not as a sequence, so in fact they didn’t refute the
sequence as whole unless in paragraphs six and seven, but also the given statements deviates
from targeting the sequence, so they failed in achieving their purpose and objective to stand
against it since their ideas didn’t be stacked and focused on the main topic.

According to “Melissa’s” and “Anusha’s” ethos, nothing is mentioned about their background
that would gives a quick view on their extrinsic ethos and give evidence on their credibility and
experience. But according to intrinsic ethos contain many faults like the language they used was
very offensive and informal way: “dead wrong/dangerous myth/deplores the culture of today’s
young people...” Also it was somehow specific and directed toward Americans due to the use of
some words related to the American society that others wouldn’t understand: “poverty
wages/congressional Republicans’/means-tested benefits/independent financial security …” so
their language was somehow vaguely for non-Americans as if this sequence doesn’t target
except Americans. Moreover, their tone was very aggressive, ironic, and sarcastic against the
opposing point of view, so they tends to use some jokes in a silly way: “a part of magical golden
ticket out of poverty/two poor people getting married does not make anyone less poor…”
While the text structure was good in shape (introduction, body, conclusion), but prosaic in
context due to ideas were sparse in an unrelated way, for example in paragraphs two three four
five they refuted that education, work and marriage doesn’t give us success separately and not
as a sequence also they talked about abusive marriage which is not related in any way to the
topic, without shedding the light on logical arguments and reasoning. Also the two counter
arguments written at the two micro and macro levels pretends that poor people will stay in
poverty due to the economic reality, and that many people would fall in poverty due to an
unexpected accident, concluding that the success sequence is a dangerous myth that has no
effect on success, while many people are overcoming this economic reality and getting out from
poverty by having a good educational level then a job that satisfies all their needs, in addition
all people face accidents throughout their lives but still their many successful people and
wealthy, therefore accidents aren’t reality the cause of poverty. So, in general the structure of
the text was weak, with long sentences mainly. Furthermore, they seemed to be attacking
President Donald Trump when they seemed of making fun about his quote: “Unfortunately,
President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans’ solution is that if we simply take away
people’s health care to pay for more millionaire tax cut, that will help people find jobs
faster!/all things at risk under this conservative Congress an President…” knowing that there is
no relation between him and the success sequence so if they have any political views it
shouldn’t be showed in such an article.

Concerning the pathos, the writers used mainly the third point of view (his/young
people/they/Americans) but tends to use the sometime the first and second (we all want/ if
you pay).As in the text there were plenty of questions and their answers in addition to
exclamatory sentences that shows the reaction and the dash of the authors to support their
point of view and refute the other one which is wrong since they should be objective in their
critique showing logical reasoning and not emotional ones, for example: : “Why? If you pay
people poverty wages…/that will help people find jobs faster! / And marriage? Two people
getting married…” Other evidence of inserting emotions is the presence of some figurative
languages like allusion (magical golden ticket) hyperbola (blindly promoting
marriage…/dangerous myth…) paradox (young people are more educated than any previous
generation…unemployment and underemployment have been falling for years…).

In general the article was full of mistakes and defects which lead to miss credibility and losing
the ability of convincing us, since the showed evidences didn’t target the topic and the
refutations didn’t refute the sequence in fact. So, the authors Melissa and Anusha didn’t
achieve their purpose due of their random and unorganized ideas present and informal way of
writing that was full of sarcasm that was showed from the first beginning of the text from the
title and generalization in refutation without being objective in any judgment specially when
they considered the success sequence as an dangerous myth knowing that it is a theory that a
big part of people works by and they are getting a good results and reaching life success. Also
they restrict their audience by Americans absolutely, whereby many non-American people read
this article which makes it weaker and non-global. In addition, they insert emotions and their
political opinion which is wrong also. So we can conclude that the writers are not advanced and
non -well credible ones. Otherwise, the topic they choose to refute is a true fact that is hard to
refute and they failed also in, since the success sequence is the best track a person could follow
in his life for reaching success , because getting education is the most important base you
should get in your life before being higher to a job, and as your education level was high you
would get a better job and this is the world job fact, then after education and finding a good job
you will be capable of establishing a family and covering all its needs. But if you married before
getting job you will fall in finical problems, and in order to find a job that satisfies your needs
you should be well educated.

In conclusion, the article: “No Young People Aren’t Poor Because They’re Not Married” was
very defective and bad. Since the writers changed the opposing point of view and miss interpret
it, so their refutation deviates out from the target and the needed purpose, therefore they
though they achieved their goal despites all the mistakes that were made. Many advices could
be given for them like giving relevant refutations and use logic not emotions in addition of
respecting the opposing point of view.