In Praise of Fast Food
1. The title establishes the overall theme of the writing by telling what the article will do. According to the title of this piece, the author sets out to praise fast food. The title made me expect arguments defending fast food. The title fulfilled my expectations almost entirely, with the exception of what exactly the paper was defending. I expected the paper to defend fast food businesses such as McDonalds or Burger King. In actuality, the paper defends mass-produced, processed foods, not fast food restaurants.
2. The target audience is not academic, and the essay is written in a general, informal tone similar to most magazine articles. Laudan specifically mentions “culinary Luddites,” people who scorn industrialized food for both moral and political reasons. Her argument is effective on the intended audience because she writes as a “historian” validating her points with historical facts. For example, she notes that the nostalgia over “natural”, “ethnic”, “artisan”, “healthy” and “traditional” foods is idealistic rather than realistic. Without modern day advances in food production, …show more content…
This piece may best be described as an “evaluation of culture” genre which employs “practical criteria.” Laudan is writing for a publication that claims to be directed towards people interested in independent ideas and forward thinking. She is attempting to persuade the reader that modern, mass-produced food and farming techniques are unarguably more ideal than older ones. To give credit to her claims, she utilizes primarily logical arguments using facts and reason. One logical and emotional argument is that “women without servants could expect to spend five hours a day kneeling at the grindstone preparing the dough for the family’s tortillas.” This is logical because it shows how much time was spent preparing food and emotional because it causes the reader to empathize with the woman who spent so much of her day toiling to make such a simple food
1. The title establishes the overall theme of the writing by telling what the article will do. According to the title of this piece, the author sets out to praise fast food. The title made me expect arguments defending fast food. The title fulfilled my expectations almost entirely, with the exception of what exactly the paper was defending. I expected the paper to defend fast food businesses such as McDonalds or Burger King. In actuality, the paper defends mass-produced, processed foods, not fast food restaurants.
2. The target audience is not academic, and the essay is written in a general, informal tone similar to most magazine articles. Laudan specifically mentions “culinary Luddites,” people who scorn industrialized food for both moral and political reasons. Her argument is effective on the intended audience because she writes as a “historian” validating her points with historical facts. For example, she notes that the nostalgia over “natural”, “ethnic”, “artisan”, “healthy” and “traditional” foods is idealistic rather than realistic. Without modern day advances in food production, …show more content…
This piece may best be described as an “evaluation of culture” genre which employs “practical criteria.” Laudan is writing for a publication that claims to be directed towards people interested in independent ideas and forward thinking. She is attempting to persuade the reader that modern, mass-produced food and farming techniques are unarguably more ideal than older ones. To give credit to her claims, she utilizes primarily logical arguments using facts and reason. One logical and emotional argument is that “women without servants could expect to spend five hours a day kneeling at the grindstone preparing the dough for the family’s tortillas.” This is logical because it shows how much time was spent preparing food and emotional because it causes the reader to empathize with the woman who spent so much of her day toiling to make such a simple food