Analysis of Gloria Jimenez's "Against All Odds and Against the Common Good"
Essay Analysis
Gloria Jiménez wrote an essay at Tuffs University in 2003 named, “Against All Odds and Against the Common Good (Jiménez 116). The purpose of this essay is to persuade and support the following thesis: “Still, when all is said and done about lotteries bringing a vast amount of money into the lives of many people into the lives of a few, the states should not be in the business of urging people to gamble (Jiménez 116).” The evidence given in support of toward this argument does not point toward the proper thesis identified in the beginning of the essay. Jiménez begins with little confidence in her ability to persuade the states to get out of the lottery business when she says, “State-run lotteries are now so common – thirty-nine states and Washington, D.C., operate lotteries – the states will probably never get out of the lottery business (Jiménez 116).” Here we see that her essay is directed at the common citizen rather than the government. She acknowledges that stopping the lottery is not the purpose of the essay when she soon follows with the statement that, “the states need not urge gambling (Jiménez 116)”. She then proceeds to lay out her evidence that the state government is indeed encouraging the lottery; Maryland says, “Play Today. Cash Tomorrow”; New York’s says, “You Can’t Win If You Don’t Play”; Oregon says, “There Is No Such Thing As A Losing Ticket”; Illinois says, “This Could Be Your Ticket Out (Jiménez 116-119)”. Another main tool the author uses is addressing some opposing viewpoints associated with the running of state lotteries. These issues she is brings up do not defend her view point that states should not be influencing gambling appropriately. There are five opposing viewpoints the author addresses concerning this issue include the fact that people have freewill to participate, funds are used for education or other important services, taxes
Gloria Jiménez wrote an essay at Tuffs University in 2003 named, “Against All Odds and Against the Common Good (Jiménez 116). The purpose of this essay is to persuade and support the following thesis: “Still, when all is said and done about lotteries bringing a vast amount of money into the lives of many people into the lives of a few, the states should not be in the business of urging people to gamble (Jiménez 116).” The evidence given in support of toward this argument does not point toward the proper thesis identified in the beginning of the essay. Jiménez begins with little confidence in her ability to persuade the states to get out of the lottery business when she says, “State-run lotteries are now so common – thirty-nine states and Washington, D.C., operate lotteries – the states will probably never get out of the lottery business (Jiménez 116).” Here we see that her essay is directed at the common citizen rather than the government. She acknowledges that stopping the lottery is not the purpose of the essay when she soon follows with the statement that, “the states need not urge gambling (Jiménez 116)”. She then proceeds to lay out her evidence that the state government is indeed encouraging the lottery; Maryland says, “Play Today. Cash Tomorrow”; New York’s says, “You Can’t Win If You Don’t Play”; Oregon says, “There Is No Such Thing As A Losing Ticket”; Illinois says, “This Could Be Your Ticket Out (Jiménez 116-119)”. Another main tool the author uses is addressing some opposing viewpoints associated with the running of state lotteries. These issues she is brings up do not defend her view point that states should not be influencing gambling appropriately. There are five opposing viewpoints the author addresses concerning this issue include the fact that people have freewill to participate, funds are used for education or other important services, taxes
References: Jemméz, Gloria. “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Arguments, with Readings, 9th edition. Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martins, 2011: 116-119. Print.