Friday, February 5, 2010

Dustin Belliston..... well, here it is.

Brett D Schaefer speaks frequently on international affairs to business groups, congressional staff and academic audiences. He has proven himself by writing over 120 public policy papers. Mr. Schaefer has proven that he has a greater view of economics through his experience and master’s degree in international developmental economics from the School of International Service at American University in Washington, D.C. On March 8th, 2003, he wrote an analysis entitled “Promoting Growth and Prosperity in the Developing World through Economic Freedom,” published in Economic Perspectives. Brett D Schaefer is highly effective in his argument through use of established creditability, fabulous appeal to human emotion, the ability to be concise and powerful, and his ability to support his argument. He uses these means to argue that the assistance in volumes of hundreds of billions of dollars from developed nations, while intended for good, are not as effective in all the under developed countries if the country is not considered free to use that assistance to create lasting wealth and prosperity.

Mr. Schaefer not only relies on his own rooted creditability, but other sources of authentic validity. The argument for his argument does not fall on his word and logic alone. He uses the data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), reports from World Bank in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), analysis by other economists, the Heritage Foundation, and current legislation passed by the former President George W Bush in 2004 which was The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).


  1. In the first part, you say that he "has a greater view of..." I am wondering if you mean the he has a great view or are you making a comparison?
    As a suggestion I would put all the background or description of the writers argument before the thesis statement so that your intro ends with power.
    You may consider finding a new way of saying "the argument for his argument" as it sounds redundant.

  2. The argument for his argument, could be better worded (The substance of his argument....basis....etc.)

    I feel like your statement about being concise and powerful is drawn out (not concise?)...I would reword that to something like "being powerfully concise" rather than what the clause is now.

    It's a great start though! I really like all the background information on the writer, it builds ethos in your support of his argument!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.