"What is a Life Worth?" By Amanda Ripley Postreading

Activity 30
 In the article"What is a Life Worth" by Amanda Ripley it describes that we shouldn't put a price tag on someones life. In the article she also describes in a tragic event such as 9/11 that it really isn't fair that based on a specific persons income the government will total up their earnings in their lifetime and that will be the amount the family gets, which isn't the right way to solve things because say a man who is thirty three years old died in the 9/11 attack and his minimum salary was around $30,000 a year and another man also died making $500.000 a year, say the man who was making $30,000 was struggling to pay his bills and was just about living the bare minimum with five children and a wife who isn't working because she is having another child on the way, the government would approximate how long he would of lived and then the total the money and give that money to the family. Two men in the same accident, why should another family get more than the other? Another thing that Ripley describes in her article is greed, such an ugly trait a person can come upon plays a big factor of compensation when someone dies (which Amanda Ripley highly agrees on) which is upsetting to see that families rather get a bigger chunk of money than grieve a death.

Activity 31
1. Well in the article Amanda Ripley does state that its unfair the way the government distributes money to families when either their spouses or family members die in a tragic accident. But shes does have two opinions on greed that it isnt right for families to be greedy in a time of distress but on the other hand some people have a different way of grieving and tend to be greedy, its just human nature i guess.

2.The types of evidence Ripley uses to get across the key points and issues associated with the compensation of all victims are she gives examples of families who are going through these tough times of a loss of a family member or spouse and the financial struggles they are going to have to face without them. In the articles she describes the Sparacio family, Thomas Sparacio who died in Tower 2 lived in Staten Island with two year old twins with a wife(Angela Sparacio) who is excepting another child soon. Angela Sparacio only got an estimated $138,000 from the government which isnt much at all since Thomas was the primary salary coming from the house hold. Angela only worked part time as a psychologist and she isnt planning to back to work anytime soon since she has a third child on the way so she basically stuck in a rut she cant possibly get out of.

3. I do think the information Amanda Ripley is valid because it wouldnt make any sense if she lied about information she provided because she isnt trying to persuade the readers she is basically trying to get the readers to feel the suffering they have the go through trying to figure out the financial problems and sadness they are going to face since their loved one is gone.

4. I think the writer of the article uses an appeal the emotion to get the readers to get a feel what the families are facing. Just the the family I was talking about in the previous question I felt that Ripley was trying to get ht reader to understand how the wife felt trying to use an appeal to emotion Ripley describes the problems the wife is going to face without her husbands support.