Reading Response 1

Singer's piece and Divakaruni's piece are very different, and Singer's really bothered me. First, hardly any families spend 30,000 on necessities becasue there are so many things parents must pay for now. textbook fees, school uniforms, sports gear, and many others. Even people who could pay that, mostly can't, because the money is going somewhere else, and rent needs to be paid. He expects everyone to live off "necessities", well what about enriching our lives with experiences and not just sitting around all day? What about paying for college? If everyone only worried about food and water, our country would get nothing done and it would be a disaster. There would be no technological advancements with this plan. he was also kinda pushy in his argument, and that doesn't help persuade someone. On the other hand, Divakaruni's writing was persuasive and not pushy. There were interesting little stories, she stated her opinion, and asked many questions. That makes the reader think more, and I was convinced. I did have reader bias because I read Singer's first, so of course, I would think the second is much more reasonable.