A high school student wrote a newspaper article about how the candy vending machines were taken away. His points of evidence were that the candy gives them energy to complete the school day, the administration is taking one of there most basic freedoms away, and they don't need to be eating that nutritional because they are teenagers (Candy, Our Candy 2). In my opinion, those points of evidence are invalid and the principal at there school agreed with me. He stated that the candy was unnutritional, it wasn't neccesarilly a freedom, and it gave them a sugar rush which left them mentally exhausted by the end of the day (Principal 1). In this quarrel it is clear to me that the principal has better reasoning because the student has terrible reasoning,
