Coumes 1

Hannah Coumes
Professor Sheila Fielding
WRTC 103
17 February, 2016
Can Marriage Solve Poverty?
The Nation published an article on January 15th, 2014 entitled, Why Marriage
Wont Solve Poverty by Michelle Goldberg. The article is helpful for anyone
considering marriage as a solution to get out of poverty. Michelle Goldbergs argument is
that a person should never get married to fix their financial situation because that could
just lead to more problems. She convinces the reader of her argument by using facts and
statistics to prove that it is worse for the individual to get married for financial reasons
instead of love.
In the article, Michelle Goldberg explains that many conservative programs put
millions of dollars towards promoting marriage to end poverty, but they are still found to
be unsuccessful. Goldberg refers to studies that have shown that children in single-parent
homes do not do as well in academics as children in two-parent homes. However,
marriage does not solve the problem; finding better ways to fund single-parent homes
does. A marriage based on money can be worse than no marriage at all, and can lead to
abuse in the household. Because of this, women are more likely to leave someone in a
bad marriage due to abuse than they were many years ago. Her research has shown that
women put children before marriage and want to support the children the best way they
can.

Coumes 2
Michelle Goldberg uses ethos to show credibility in her work and her sources. For
example, the article states that, Michelle Goldberg was formerly a senior contributing
writer at The Nation (16). This shows that she is credible as a writer for her previous
works. She also uses ethos by quoting a CAP senior fellow, Ann OLeary (6)
throughout a few paragraphs. Using this ethos showed the sources she used throughout
the article had credibility as well. Lastly, Goldberg discussed, George W. Bushs Healthy
Marriage Initiative (7) which was a policy that was dedicated to ending poverty with
marriage. By noting important events, especially within the government, Michelle
Goldberg was able to show credibility with her strong choice of sources and examples.
Michelle Goldberg uses multiple examples of pathos in the argument so she can
get an emotional response out of the reader. In the sub-heading, she writes, Republicans
are once again promoting marriage as a solution to poverty. When she uses the words
once again, she sounds annoyed and is trying to get the same emotional response from
the reader so they will feel tired of Republican antics. Similarly, she says conservatives
are once again pushing marriage as a panacea for poverty (1). It is clear that the author is
fed up with Republicans for thinking that marriage has the ability to solve poverty
because they are not thinking about the other consequences. She also uses well-known
names such as Beyonce and Lebron James (3) as people who have promoted and
worked towards a better lifestyle for women in poverty. Goldberg uses this technique so
the reader can feel like he or she can connect with these celebrities.
Michelle Goldberg uses logos by providing several facts and statistics to reinforce
her ideas. When explaining that Republicans have tried using marriage as a tool to reduce
poverty before, she said, George W. Bushs Healthy Marriage Initiative spent $150

Coumes 3
million promoting marriage as a poverty alleviation tool (6). Unfortunately for them,
that did not help the cause and proved to be inadequate. She discussed this further by
using the study of adapting to single-parent families versus encouraging two-parent
households. She writes that, sixty-four percent of Americans favor a government policy
of helping society adapt to the reality of single-parent families (9). This shows that
society as a whole believes that people should be more encouraging to single-parent
families. The study also showed that 51 [sic] percent favor a goal of reducing the
number of children born to single parents and encouraging two-parent households (9).
Michelle Goldberg also shows that in todays society, women are more likely to leave a
bad marriage and be happier about it then men. She states that, 19 percent of divorced
low-income women wish theyd stayed married, compared to 53 percent of divorced lowincome men (11). This shows that if a woman is in an unhappy marriage, she will not
stay in it even though she has a low-income.
Goldberg is an effective writer because she can relay her information to the
audience in a way that is easy for the reader to understand. She includes references that
the reader can relate to but still includes refutable sources to back it up. Unfortunately,
she is less effective in certain paragraphs because she shows bias when speaking about
Republicans and their views that she disagrees with.
By using pathos, Goldberg is trying to convince the audience to get emotionally
involved and take the more liberal side of the argument. By using ethos, the author is able
to show her credibility and the credibility of her sources. Lastly, by using logos, the
author is using statistics and facts to convince anyone in a low-income situation to not get
married to solve it.

Coumes 4

A Ring On Your Finger was created by Hannah Coumes to show

that it is better to fund single-parent homes than it is to force a
marriage to solve poverty.

The PSA, A Ring On Your Finger, was created by Hannah Coumes on

February 17, 2016 in Harrisonburg, VA. The PSA targets an audience of any individual
who is considering or has considered getting married to get out of poverty. The author is
trying to convince that audience that marriage is not the solution to their problems. With a
strong message and a memorable picture, the author is able to convince the audience of
this.
The PSA uses the strong message, A ring on your finger wont fix your finances
to convince the audience not to get married to get out of a rough financial situation. It is

Coumes 5
to promote One.org and their goal to end poverty in ways that are beneficial to everyone.
The wedding bands are a quick attention-getter but once the reader gets a closer look, it
becomes apparent that marriage is not a solution to all of the worlds problems, especially
poverty. The word finances is a different color than the rest of the image because it is
trying to put an emphasis on the main point of the PSA.
Hannah Coumes uses ethos in the PSA to show the credibility behind her work.
First, it was endorsed by One.org, which shows that it has credibility from the start
because that is a reliable source. Secondly, the creator of the PSA also is a credible source
because she has been part of a household that was below the poverty line as a singleparent home and a multiple-parent home.
Coumes uses logos to show the facts and statistics within the PSA. For example,
the quote on the right about how Americans favor a policy helping single-parent families
is a statistic from the reading itself and a fact. Similarly, the quote on the left about
single-parent families needing to be well funded is also a statistic from the reading and
therefore a fact. Lastly, she put an emphasis on the word finances which can be
mathematical figures. This is an example of logos and shows the main point of the article.
The most impactful part of the PSA is pathos because it can bring an emotional
response out of the viewer. An example of a subtle use of pathos is the font used on the
first line to symbolize the idea that marriage is sweet and innocent and can fix all
problems. Then the underlining of the word wont and the color of the word finances
with a bold text symbolizes what a marriage based on money would become. The most

Coumes 6
important use of pathos was the image because the picture of the rings can get an
emotional response out of the viewer.
The authors PSA is effective because of the fonts used and the image that has the
ability to catch the viewers eye. The quotes in the PSA do not clearly explain the main
points in the article. However, they raise questions that will peak the interest of the reader
and encourage them to read the article. The author uses ethos to show that her sources are
credible and the viewer can trust her. Similar to the article, the author uses logos so the
viewer has accurate facts and information. Lastly, the author uses pathos to get an
emotional response out of people with a strong image and phrase. The PSA is similar to
the verbal argument because they both are based on the same main point that marriage
will not solve poverty. The difference between the two is Coumes PSA is less detail
oriented than the verbal argument. It is more powerful than the verbal argument because
it grabs the viewers attention and at the same time, convinces the viewer to read the
article. Both Michelle Goldbergs verbal argument and Hannah Coumes PSA effectively
show the reader why marriage can not solve poverty and can only make a familys
dynamic worse.

Coumes 7
Works Cited
A Ring On Your Finger. 2016. Web. JPEG file.
Goldberg, Michelle. "Why Marriage Won't Solve Poverty." The Nation. The Nation
Company LLC, 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.