A Rhetorical Analysis of “Canadian Lifestyle Choices: A Public Health Failure”
In the essay “Canadian Lifestyle Choices: A Public Health Failure”, Daniel Rosenfield et al. discusses the government’s action regarding Canadian health policies. The authors make a strong argument that due to the Canadian governments lacking health policies, the overall health of Canadians is deteriorating. It is further discussed that the decline in health is due to poor regulation of foods, including portion sizes at restaurants, lack of properly labelled products, and added ingredients to foods. Despite that the argument being made is quite justifiable, the techniques used in the essay are ineffective in asserting the main idea. This is because the techniques …show more content…
holds a large amount of bias towards the government’s choices concerning the health of Canadians. Justly so, as the writers are health care workers, it is understandable why they are biased. However, the sharing of this strong bias throughout the essay proves to be quite over whelming as it doesn’t leave much room for alternative ideas when read by the general population. For example, the writer states: “The Canadians sleep easy (well, not quite, because of their obstructive sleep apnea) thanks to the government that lets the products they love go unfettered” (Rosenfield et al., 2011, p. 219). This example draws attention to the problem at hand effectively through the use of humour, however, it holds a strong bias towards the government’s role in sustaining Canadians health. This strong bias inhibits the reader’s ability to realize that poor health is not solely due to the government but also the Canadians themselves. Although the government can regulate foods, Canadians should be aware of what they, and their children, are consuming as well. Even though the bias is understandable when being expressed through the view of health care professionals, it becomes slightly too overwhelming when read by the general …show more content…
As health professionals, the diction used is suiting as it correlates with their attitudes when discussing health matters in the workplace. However, when read by the general population, the diction used seems to minimize the severity of the matter and distract from the overall meaning. For example, when addressing “Mister Average Canadian” (Rosenfield et al., 2011, p. 219) the author writes: “[he] was a lean, mean, hockey-playing machine who was pretty fit and healthy” (219). Further addressing the average Canadians twenty five years down the road, Rosenfield describes them as “fat, hypertensive, smoking, couch potatoes” (219). In regard to diction, it may be common use in the health professional’s field to discuss the deterioration of health in this matter. However, when exposed to outsiders, it comes off as if Rosenfield et al. is not taking the matter seriously enough. As a result, the overall argument becomes weaker and does not support the argument as
In the essay “Canadian Lifestyle Choices: A Public Health Failure”, Daniel Rosenfield et al. discusses the government’s action regarding Canadian health policies. The authors make a strong argument that due to the Canadian governments lacking health policies, the overall health of Canadians is deteriorating. It is further discussed that the decline in health is due to poor regulation of foods, including portion sizes at restaurants, lack of properly labelled products, and added ingredients to foods. Despite that the argument being made is quite justifiable, the techniques used in the essay are ineffective in asserting the main idea. This is because the techniques …show more content…
holds a large amount of bias towards the government’s choices concerning the health of Canadians. Justly so, as the writers are health care workers, it is understandable why they are biased. However, the sharing of this strong bias throughout the essay proves to be quite over whelming as it doesn’t leave much room for alternative ideas when read by the general population. For example, the writer states: “The Canadians sleep easy (well, not quite, because of their obstructive sleep apnea) thanks to the government that lets the products they love go unfettered” (Rosenfield et al., 2011, p. 219). This example draws attention to the problem at hand effectively through the use of humour, however, it holds a strong bias towards the government’s role in sustaining Canadians health. This strong bias inhibits the reader’s ability to realize that poor health is not solely due to the government but also the Canadians themselves. Although the government can regulate foods, Canadians should be aware of what they, and their children, are consuming as well. Even though the bias is understandable when being expressed through the view of health care professionals, it becomes slightly too overwhelming when read by the general …show more content…
As health professionals, the diction used is suiting as it correlates with their attitudes when discussing health matters in the workplace. However, when read by the general population, the diction used seems to minimize the severity of the matter and distract from the overall meaning. For example, when addressing “Mister Average Canadian” (Rosenfield et al., 2011, p. 219) the author writes: “[he] was a lean, mean, hockey-playing machine who was pretty fit and healthy” (219). Further addressing the average Canadians twenty five years down the road, Rosenfield describes them as “fat, hypertensive, smoking, couch potatoes” (219). In regard to diction, it may be common use in the health professional’s field to discuss the deterioration of health in this matter. However, when exposed to outsiders, it comes off as if Rosenfield et al. is not taking the matter seriously enough. As a result, the overall argument becomes weaker and does not support the argument as