Critical Analysis of the Arguements Presented in Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good by Gloria Jiménez

784 Words2 Pages

In her first publication, “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good”, Gloria Jiménez tries to convince the readers that the lottery business is urging people to gamble. The thesis is apparent in the first paragraph: “Still, when all is said and done about lotteries bringing a bit of excitement into the lives of many people and bringing a vast amount of money into the lives of a few, the states should not be in the business of urging people to gamble” (118). The author successfully presents valid arguments to support her opposition to state-run lotteries throughout the essay; whether the evidence will properly convince most readers the way she wants them to, is questionable. Although the valid arguments and evidence Jiménez provides is adequate for the essay, I believe only one argument really stands out to convince her readers the purpose of the essay.
A weakness in Jiménez’s essay stands out in the first sentence when she begins her essay with, “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” (118). By including that in the beginning of her essay, Jiménez implies that her audience is not the state government, instead it is intended for the common citizen. Therefore, we can conclude that the main purpose of the essay is not stopping the lottery, because that would not be reasonable; instead it is to make people aware that the states are taking advantage of them in the lottery business.
After stating the purpose and revealing the audience, the author presents five opposing viewpoints that will make the chief arguments in the essay. The viewpoints she includes are in favor of state-run lotteries. Out of the fiv...

... middle of paper ...

.... I believe this was a clever way for her to end the essay. The analogy is not only true, but also very eye opening and convincing. I can see that Jiménez put good thought into how she wanted to leave the readers reflecting on her essay.
As a whole, Jiménez did a fine job providing evidence and support for the claims in the essay, “Against the Odds and Against the Common Good”. Although, the position to stop operating the lottery business is not reasonable, her point to persuade the citizens not to fall under peer pressure of the slogans will probably not convince many readers. Despite the fact that I did not find many weaknesses in her essay, Jiménez did not persuade me not to purchase a lottery ticket. It may be gambling, but sometimes a person has to take risks and expect consequences to get what he or she wants. What person does not have hopes for easy money?

More about Critical Analysis of the Arguements Presented in Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good by Gloria Jiménez

Open Document