More than 2 in 3 adults and about one-third of children are considered to be overweight or obese. In his article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko claims the idea that we should take responsibility of what we eat instead of blaming the government for it. Balko argues that the way the government is spending a lot of money for anti obesity measure isn’t the right approach to prevent obesity. In contrast, in David Zinczenko’s article “Don’t Blame The Eater,” he insists how the fast food industries are to be blamed for the problem of obesity in America. He explains how the rate of diabetes in children has dramatically increased because of the negative effects of the fast food restaurants. Zinczenko wants the industries to create nutrition
…show more content…
For example, he explains how if the government continues to pay for obesity victims’ medications, then they won’t have any “incentive” to improve their eating habits (397). I believe that “incentive” is such an impactful word because it inspires good deeds as it means inspiring someone to do something good. Blako uses the word incentive instead of some common words like motivation or spur to make his statement more powerful. Balko also uses phrases like, “A society where everyone is responsible for everyone else’s well-being is a society more apt to accept government restrictions” (397). This statement completely changed my point of view of his argument, because in the beginning of his essay I did not really believe what he was claiming, however after I read this phrase, I changed my mind and opinion on the issue and began to believe his. At first I believed that only we pay for our mistakes, not anyone else. However, after reading what Balko said about society having to pay for the consequences of other people’s mistakes and how society is paying made me shift my mind to believe his point of view. This really shows how powerful that phrase is. On the other hand, Zinczenko uses less powerful and simple phrases like, “provide calorie information on request, but even that can be hard to understand” (393). I thought that that phrase was really weak, because what may be hard to understand for …show more content…
For instance, he states how “we are becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s” (396). He later explains how we pay for the consequences of the mistakes, of eating unhealthy food, that we didn’t even make. Why should we pay for the medications of those people who don’t even want to try to change their unhealthy eating habits? In contrast, Zinczenko questions’ “where, exactly, are consumers- particularly teenagers- supposed to find alternatives?” (392). He believes that it is very hard to find healthy food or healthy food restaurants in today’s society and that there are less grocery stores than fast-food restaurants. It is true that there are less grocery stores than fast-food restaurants, however, it is not that difficult to go to a grocery store if you really want to be healthy, as in today’s world there are other forms of transportations, such as buses, if you don’t have a car. Thus, I believe that Balko’s use of emotional persuasiveness is much stronger than Zinczenko’s use of emotional
For example, he explains how if the government continues to pay for obesity victims’ medications, then they won’t have any “incentive” to improve their eating habits (397). I believe that “incentive” is such an impactful word because it inspires good deeds as it means inspiring someone to do something good. Blako uses the word incentive instead of some common words like motivation or spur to make his statement more powerful. Balko also uses phrases like, “A society where everyone is responsible for everyone else’s well-being is a society more apt to accept government restrictions” (397). This statement completely changed my point of view of his argument, because in the beginning of his essay I did not really believe what he was claiming, however after I read this phrase, I changed my mind and opinion on the issue and began to believe his. At first I believed that only we pay for our mistakes, not anyone else. However, after reading what Balko said about society having to pay for the consequences of other people’s mistakes and how society is paying made me shift my mind to believe his point of view. This really shows how powerful that phrase is. On the other hand, Zinczenko uses less powerful and simple phrases like, “provide calorie information on request, but even that can be hard to understand” (393). I thought that that phrase was really weak, because what may be hard to understand for …show more content…
For instance, he states how “we are becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s” (396). He later explains how we pay for the consequences of the mistakes, of eating unhealthy food, that we didn’t even make. Why should we pay for the medications of those people who don’t even want to try to change their unhealthy eating habits? In contrast, Zinczenko questions’ “where, exactly, are consumers- particularly teenagers- supposed to find alternatives?” (392). He believes that it is very hard to find healthy food or healthy food restaurants in today’s society and that there are less grocery stores than fast-food restaurants. It is true that there are less grocery stores than fast-food restaurants, however, it is not that difficult to go to a grocery store if you really want to be healthy, as in today’s world there are other forms of transportations, such as buses, if you don’t have a car. Thus, I believe that Balko’s use of emotional persuasiveness is much stronger than Zinczenko’s use of emotional