In Praise Of Fast Food Evaluation Argument

In Praise of Fast Food Many people strongly oppose the idea of fast food. They say that it is to automatic and we should go back to the old days of making food but in the evaluation argument “In Praise of Fast Food,” Rachel Laudan demonstrates how this thinking is incorrect thinking and how we should be thankful for fast food, but is the paper a true evaluation argument? Does it meet all the requirements? It must contain the three criteria to be a successful. First, it must claim whether something is good or bad based on a certain criterion. Second, it must be fair in the evaluation itself, and the third is to provide evidence to support the claim. Fortunately, it passes all three tests and is a success in every area of the evaluation argumentative paper requirements. The first criterion is to claim whether something is good or bad. “In Praise of Fast Food” explains why fast food is good thing based off the facts that fast food is easily accessible, it is healthier than food before fast food, and it allows people to do other things than grow and make food. She first points out …show more content…
It must make a claim based on certain criteria whether something is good or bad. It also must be fair in its judgment. Without a fair judgement, the paper cannot be considered credible, for if a judge where to not be fair, he would not be considered a good judge. Lastly, it must provide supporting evidence to the claim, because without evidence, it is just a personal opinion, and doesn’t have any proof to back it up, making it unbelievable. The evaluation argument paper “In Praise of Fast Food” meets all three of the criteria. It makes the claim that fast food is good based of the criteria that it is easily accessible, it is healthier, and it enables people to accomplish other things. This paper is by all means, is a successful paper that meets all criteria for an evaluation argument