Argument Paper II The quality of school lunches has been a debated topic throughout this past decade. While some are advocating for healthier lunch options for students, others would prefer that lunch options stay fairly the same to offer a more diverse selection of foods. The opinion article “Healthy School Lunches Under Attack: Our View” written in 2015 by USA Today is a prime example of those in favor of healthier school lunches, and on the opposing side, “Provide Flexibility in the Lunchroom: Opposing View” written by the president of the School Nutrition Association Jean Ronnei in 2015, is an article discussing the possibility of school lunch mandates going too far. The articles provide interesting points on both sides of the argument, however, after reading both articles
…show more content…
While this is the more effective argument, there is still a problem with this article, and that being their use of a fallacy. Towards the end of the article, Ronnei writes, “If school meal programs continue to lose money, it won’t just be the menu they cut. School districts will have to cut education funds to cover losses.” (Ronnei 2015), then encouraging Congress to provide more funding so this does not happen. Here, they are using the fallacy false dilemma by making the readers side with them because education is the last thing we would want to be cut, so then we’ll agree with them; that Congress should increase funding, when there could, in fact, be more than just the one option. It seems that they use this fallacy as a scare tactic to make readers side with them, which isn’t the most honest way to get others to agree with you. Other than this concluding fallacy, the article has a strong argument primarily because of its attention to the other side of the argument, evidence to support their claims, and
While this is the more effective argument, there is still a problem with this article, and that being their use of a fallacy. Towards the end of the article, Ronnei writes, “If school meal programs continue to lose money, it won’t just be the menu they cut. School districts will have to cut education funds to cover losses.” (Ronnei 2015), then encouraging Congress to provide more funding so this does not happen. Here, they are using the fallacy false dilemma by making the readers side with them because education is the last thing we would want to be cut, so then we’ll agree with them; that Congress should increase funding, when there could, in fact, be more than just the one option. It seems that they use this fallacy as a scare tactic to make readers side with them, which isn’t the most honest way to get others to agree with you. Other than this concluding fallacy, the article has a strong argument primarily because of its attention to the other side of the argument, evidence to support their claims, and