1

In her New York Times essay, “Terror’s Purse Strings,” writer Dana Thomas uses the opening of New York’s fashion shows as an opportunity to expose a darker side of fashion—the impact of imitation designer goods. Thomas explains to her readers why buying counterfeit luxury items, like fake handbags, is a serious problem. Her first goal is to raise awareness of the dangerous ties between counterfeiters who sell fake luxury merchandise and international criminal organizations that support terrorism and child labor. Her second goal is to explain how people can be a part of the solution by refusing to buy the counterfeit goods that finance these criminal activities. By establishing her credibility, building her case slowly, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Thomas succeeds in writing an interesting and informative argument.

2

For Thomas’s argument to work, she has to earn her readers’ trust. She does so first by anticipating a sympathetic, well-intentioned, educated audience and then by establishing her own credibility. To avoid sounding accusatory, Thomas assumes that her readers are unaware of the problem posed by counterfeit goods. She demonstrates this by presenting basic factual information and by acknowledging what “most people think” or what “many in the West consider”: that buying counterfeit goods is harmless. She also acknowledges her readers’ high level of education by drawing comparisons with history and literature—specifically, the Victorians and Oliver Twist. To further earn the audience’s trust, she uses her knowledge and position to gain credibility. As the Paris correspondent for Newsweek and as the author of a book on luxury goods, Thomas has credibility. Showing her familiarity with the world of fashion by referring to a conversation with renowned designer Miuccia Prada, she further establishes this credibility. Later in the article, she shares her experience of witnessing the abuse that accompanies the production of fake designer handbags. This anecdote allows her to say, “I’ve seen it myself,” confirming her knowledge not just of the fashion world but also of the world of counterfeiting. Despite her authority, she does not distance herself from readers. In fact, she goes out of her way to identify with them, using informal style and first person, noting “it comes down to us” and asking what “we” can do.

116

3

In Thomas’s argument, both the organization and the use of evidence are effective. Thomas begins her article with statements that are easy to accept, and as she proceeds, she addresses more serious issues. In the first paragraph, she simply asks readers to “understand the importance of the handbag in fashion today.” She demonstrates the wide-ranging influence and appeal of counterfeit designer goods, pointing out that “at least 11 percent of the world’s clothing is fake.” Thomas then makes the point that the act of purchasing these seemingly frivolous goods can actually have serious consequences. For example, crime syndicates and possibly even terrorist organizations actually run “the counterfeiting rackets” that produce these popular items. To support this point, she relies on two kinds of evidence—quotations from terrorism experts (specifically, the leader of a respected international police organization as well as a scholar in the field) and her own personal experience at a Chinese factory. Both kinds of evidence appeal to our emotions. Discussions of terrorism, especially those that recall the terrorist attacks on the United States, create fear. Descriptions of child labor in China encourage readers to feel sympathy.

4

Thomas waits until the end of her argument to present her thesis because she assumes that her readers know little about the problem she is discussing. The one flaw in her argument is her failure to provide the evidence needed to establish connections between some causes and their effects. For example in paragraph 7, Thomas says that the sale of counterfeit T-shirts “may have helped finance the 1993 Word Trade Center bombing.” By using the word may, she qualifies her claim and weakens her argument. The same is true when Thomas says that profits from the sale of counterfeit goods “have gone to groups associated with Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist group.” Readers are left to wonder what specific groups are “associated with Hezbollah” and whether these groups are in fact terrorist organizations. Without this information, her assertion remains unsupported. In spite of these shortcomings, Thomas’s argument is clear and well organized. More definite links between causes and effects, however, would have made it more convincing than it is.