In this paper I will place the opponent's argument within the context of the larger essay. Then I will state and explain the specific argument that I will be attacking. Thereafter I will show that my opponent's conclusion does not follow her premises. Finally I will consider possible objections to what I have said.
"It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth", is a quote from Morpheus, that captures my thoughts on Laura Carlson's argument. She believes that Wal-Mart is a symbol of cultural insensitivity and rampant capitalism. By citing the way Wal-Mart enterprise grew, within 42 years, becoming the worlds largest enterprise, she wants to give us the impression that the corporation is looking to do more than make money, but to actually change their culture. I believe that her agenda is blinding her from the truth, which is that the people of Mexico want change, they are tired of being in the same continent as United States and Canada, and being viewed as a third world country.
Moreover they are actually welcoming Wal-Mart with open arms, because they know that their living condition will get much better, if not any the poor will benefit the most, and there is a lot of them in Mexico looking for an opportunity. Of course some business are going to get hurt especially small ones, but when you see the whole picture, the country is going to benefit from it. Although I believe that the expansion of Wal-Mart shows excessive capitalism, I disagree with her point about Wal-Mart being insensitive toward the Mexican culture.
She says in her conclusion that Wal-Mart is infringing on the Mexican culture, which is true to a certain degree. For example, the newest Wal-Mart is being...