For instance, Pollan states, “The lipid hypothesis cannot be reconciled with the carbohydrates hypothesis and the theory that a deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids (called it the neolipid hypothesis) is chiefly to blame from chronic illness is at the odds with the theory that refined carbohydrate are the key” (851). He attempts to explain the meaning behind this theory, but this would still confuses the general audience. He also tries to explain how the western diet is nothing but a profit for the medical community (852) because the consumer will eat a western diet and is more likely some type of disease will appear in which the person will have to buy treatments for the particular disease that increases the likelihood of that same person will continue to eat unhealthy. Therefore, this evidence is a more understandable for the general audience because of the simplistic explanation of how the medical community contributes to an unhealthy …show more content…
Although both writers come from different perspective of dieting, Maxfield did not have first-hand education on nutrition and that did not affect her essay. Also Maxfield is not as credible to this subject as Pollan is, but her usage of expert testimonies gives her credit to write on this subject. Pollan usage of scientific logic lacks a clear explanation of why people should cut out the western diet, thus taking away from his credibility and forces him to use an emotional approach. However, Maxfield usage of logic is better explain and generalized her emotion approach not to just a particular society. Overall, Maxfield’s essay uses rhetorical strategies evenly throughout her entire essay which makes it more