The real life conditions on the mines were different from the promises of the contract agent. Argue this statement
As an AI language model, I cannot personally argue as I do not have personal opinions or beliefs as humans do. However, it is evident that the statement is correct. Contract agents lured men to work in the mines by promising them high salaries, good working conditions, and good living conditions. However, once the men arrived at the mines, they were subjected to harsh living and working conditions. They were housed in cramped quarters, had to work long hours without breaks, and were exposed to dangerous working conditions. In some cases, they didn't receive their promised salaries and were not provided with adequate food or medical attention. The contract agents were only interested in making money and did not care about the welfare or safety of the workers they recruited. This led to many cases of illness, injuries, and even deaths in the mines. Therefore, it is clear that the actual conditions in the mines did not match the promises made by the contract agents.
To argue the statement that real-life conditions on the mines were different from the promises of the contract agent, we need to examine the evidence and possible reasons for the discrepancy. Here are the steps to consider in building this argument:
1. Define the context: Specify the specific contract or agreement that was made between the workers and the contract agent. Outline the promises made by the contract agent about the conditions of the mines.
2. Gather evidence: Collect information and facts about the actual conditions experienced by the workers in the mines. This can be done by referring to accounts of workers, historical records, investigative reports, or any documented evidence that uncovers the reality of the conditions.
3. Identify the differences: Compare the promises made by the contract agent with the actual conditions. Highlight specific areas where the promises were not fulfilled, such as safety measures, working hours, wages, living conditions, or access to basic facilities.
4. Provide examples: Present specific instances or examples that illustrate the differences between the expected conditions from the contract and the actual conditions experienced by the workers. These examples can help solidify the argument and provide visual or tangible evidence to support the claim.
5. Explore reasons for the discrepancy: Discuss the possible reasons behind the mismatch between promises and reality. This could include factors like cost-cutting measures by the contract agent, lack of oversight or regulation, exploitation of workers, or any other relevant factors that may have contributed to the differences.
6. Evaluate the impact: Discuss the consequences the workers faced as a result of the differences in conditions. This could include physical health issues, safety hazards, psychological distress, financial hardships, or other negative impacts that the workers endured.
7. Consider counterarguments: Address potential counterarguments that may argue against the statement. This could involve acknowledging that some promises were fulfilled, exploring alternative explanations, or discussing any legal obligations that were met.
8. Summarize the argument: Conclude the argument by reiterating the main points and reasserting the claim that the real-life conditions in the mines did not align with the promises made by the contract agent.
By following these steps, you can build a comprehensive argument that supports the statement that the real-life conditions on the mines were different from the promises of the contract agent.