In the article “Too Much of a Good Thing,” author Greg Crister debunks old parental advice about obesity and claims that childhood intervention is necessary to curb the obesity epidemic. The author publishes this article in hopes to enlighten people on his take on how to remedy the rising rate of obesity. After he provides background information on the issue, Critser advocates the use of stigmatization towards the behaviors that obese individuals act out, and provides the claim that stigmatization has helped reduce the harm of smoking and unsafe sex. Throughout the entire article, he stresses the importance of how well-known old parenting advice is incorrect, and he cites studies to prove his point. Although the author provides an abundance
…show more content…
There is only one tiny problem with his claim; he provides no evidence to back it up. These baseless claims are strewn throughout the entire article, and these claims are able to be skimmed over when compared to his expert vocabulary and his other supported claims. Notable examples of these unsupported claims include how “the cost in health care dollars to treat obesity’s medical consequences…will eventually make the battle against HIV/AIDS seem inexpensive.” (Crister, 289), and how the French were not hurt in their self-esteem when they were put on a diet as children. These claims could be described as throwaways, but when they are inherent to the author’s argument or end the entire article, one must consider where the line is drawn between throwaway and critical. Also, consider the vocabulary structure of the article itself. The author uses his most complicated words and phrases (i.e. “harried commandant”, “modicum”) as he is making his most outrageous claims. Critser essentially ropes the reader in with his distinguished vocabulary and then makes crazy claims that must be true because his studies that are supplied for other claims show that he has done his …show more content…
This is apparent through his obvious neglect to present a source of these quantitative sources. These sourceless numbers include the “Solid Epidemiological Data…” (288) about the obesity rate in countries around the world, and how “In four randomized studies…” (290), the numbers prove that children respond the best to dietary advice. Other painfully obvious misuses of statistics include only using the qualitative evidence of a quantitative study to show how undernutrition would not stunt a child’s growth and using that same study to erroneously expand the age group of kids under three to the entire age group of childhood. Critser ends off the article with the history lesson on the French, and his claim that the puericulture movement, a movement which focused on preventing childhood obesity to prevent obesity in adulthood, is the cause of the fitness of the French today creates two problems. The first one is that the puericulture movement was created over 3 generations ago, so while the children of the first generation might have eaten thin, it does not necessarily mean the grandchildren of the first generation would have followed in their footsteps. The second problem is that the puericulture movement causing the fitness of the French is not inevitably a direct cause and effect. Critser’s misuse of statistics
There is only one tiny problem with his claim; he provides no evidence to back it up. These baseless claims are strewn throughout the entire article, and these claims are able to be skimmed over when compared to his expert vocabulary and his other supported claims. Notable examples of these unsupported claims include how “the cost in health care dollars to treat obesity’s medical consequences…will eventually make the battle against HIV/AIDS seem inexpensive.” (Crister, 289), and how the French were not hurt in their self-esteem when they were put on a diet as children. These claims could be described as throwaways, but when they are inherent to the author’s argument or end the entire article, one must consider where the line is drawn between throwaway and critical. Also, consider the vocabulary structure of the article itself. The author uses his most complicated words and phrases (i.e. “harried commandant”, “modicum”) as he is making his most outrageous claims. Critser essentially ropes the reader in with his distinguished vocabulary and then makes crazy claims that must be true because his studies that are supplied for other claims show that he has done his …show more content…
This is apparent through his obvious neglect to present a source of these quantitative sources. These sourceless numbers include the “Solid Epidemiological Data…” (288) about the obesity rate in countries around the world, and how “In four randomized studies…” (290), the numbers prove that children respond the best to dietary advice. Other painfully obvious misuses of statistics include only using the qualitative evidence of a quantitative study to show how undernutrition would not stunt a child’s growth and using that same study to erroneously expand the age group of kids under three to the entire age group of childhood. Critser ends off the article with the history lesson on the French, and his claim that the puericulture movement, a movement which focused on preventing childhood obesity to prevent obesity in adulthood, is the cause of the fitness of the French today creates two problems. The first one is that the puericulture movement was created over 3 generations ago, so while the children of the first generation might have eaten thin, it does not necessarily mean the grandchildren of the first generation would have followed in their footsteps. The second problem is that the puericulture movement causing the fitness of the French is not inevitably a direct cause and effect. Critser’s misuse of statistics