Support The United States has never been a great international trader. ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ █ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ █ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ █████
The author starts by making a general claim about the United States: it has never been a "great international trader," focusing instead on manufacturing and selling products domestically. The author then points out what she claims are consequences of this approach: the US owes the world's largest amount of foreign debt, and is a "playground" for foreign investors. The author concludes that countries need foreign trade, a point she expresses metaphorically by comparing a country without foreign trade to a dog eating its tail.
The author reaches her conclusion on the basis of one specific example: the United States' historic focus on domestic rather than international trade. She makes a causal claim about this example, claiming that the U.S.'s approach led to its current "terrible" situation. She draws a conclusion expressed through a analogy: a country trying to live without foreign trade is like a dog eating its own tail.
Analysis by ArdaschirArguelles
In order to advance her █████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████
draw on an ███████
appeal to historical ████
identify a cause ███ ██ ██████
suggest a cause ██ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████
question the ethical █████ ██ ██ ████████ █████████