The paper entails a rhetorical analysis of “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and identifies and provides a brief explanation of the author’s argument through identifying two effective strategies that the author uses to support his argument. Also, an analysis of how the strategies might persuade the reader to support the claim and the assumptions the argument is based and an evaluation of the extent to which the reader would find the argument convincing are discussed. The author’s main argument is the fact that the rich people who he terms as “new upper class” have the sole responsibility for ensuring that their wealth trickles down to each member of the society. The only way to do that is to provide the adoption of a philanthropic spirit with the aim of mitigating the gap that exists between the rich and the poor. The author discredits the issue of wealth inheritance and argues that many of the people who end up inheriting wealth from their parents or ancestors, end up squandering the money and the thus helping no one. Also, the author is against the state managing money on behalf of the public since in many times the politicians end up using corrupt ways to acquire the money and end up misusing the funds that could have been used to better the lives of the most impoverished citizens.
The author uses two main strategies to support his argument that the rich should share their wealth with the less privileged. The first approach fostered by the author is the assertion that the wealthy should be actively engaged in philanthropy. The rich people in the society have enough resources that they can use to benefit themselves, but at the end of the day, they will not have impacted anyone in the community. Therefore, the rich should have the willingness to distribute their resources to the poor to close the economic difference between the two social classes. Notably, the wealth distributed by the rich to the poor should be utilized wisely so as to positively impact the less privileged. No one lives forever, and thus the wealthy at one point will have to pass on and leave their wealth in control of other people. Consequently, the value of their existence on earth is based on the many lives they transformed and directly impacted. The second strategy that the author uses to support his argument is the fact that there are two types of wealthy people. Firstly, the one that work hard and acquire resources through the returns of their efforts and secondly, those that inherit wealth. He argues that, in either of the scenarios, the wealth should be distributed in a way to create more opportunities to those that receive the financial aid. Through empowering poor people, in return, they will also enable others and thus help to bridge the difference between the wealthy and the poor. The strategies might persuade the reader to support the claim of the author since both contribute to the element of sharing resources to the poor and they all result to backing the charitable activities in the societies which positively impacts the poor people.
The author’s argument is based on the assumption that, all wealthy people are willing to share their wealth with the poor people and that the poor people in return will use the allocated resources to better their lives. The reader would find the authors claim less convincing to the point where there are chances that the donated supplies by the rich would be misused by the poor. The wealthy work hard to ensure that they amass their wealth and the poor knowing little of the struggle, they might abuse the hard earned wealth and make no difference in their lives.