David Zinczenko, Don’t Blame the Eater (p. 151)

1.      Summarize Zinczenko’s arguments (his “I say”) against the practices of fast-food companies. How persuasive are these arguments?

Zinczenko argues that fast-food companies do not provide alternatives to the fat- and calorie-laden meals they serve and that they do not prominently display caloric and other nutritional information for these products. As he writes in his final paragraph, “Fast-food companies are marketing to children a product with proven health hazards and no warning labels.” Opinions may differ as to how persuasive these arguments are, but his statistics about diabetes suggest a definite health risk. These arguments also support his larger point that lawsuits against such companies are justified.

2.      One important move in all good argumentative writing is to introduce possible objections to the position being argued—what this book calls naysayers. What objections does Zincenko introduce, and how does he respond? Can you think of other objections that he might have noted?

Zinczenko introduces objections to his arguments at two points: in his first paragraph when he raises the question “Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” and in paragraph 7 where he also phrases the objection as a question (“Shouldn’t we know better than to eat two meals a day in fast-food restaurants?”). He responds to these objections by pointing out that fast-food restaurants are “the only available options for an American kid to get an affordable meal.”  Students may think of other objections, such as the argument that parents should do more to supervise the diets of their children, teach them good eating habits, and work to counteract the advertising of fast-food chains.

3.      How does the story that Zinczenko tells in paragraph 3 and 4 about his own experience support or fail to support his argument? How could the same story be used to support an argument opposed to Zincenko’s?

By showing that he himself faced the same predicament as the young people who are suing McDonald’s, Zinczenko humanizes the problem and perhaps makes readers more sympathetic to their suit. The fact that he was able to learn to manage his diet, however, could be used to support the opposing argument that other young people should be able to do so as well instead of blaming fast-food restaurants for their weight.

4.      So what? Who cares? How does Zinczenko make clear to readers why his topic matters? Or, if he does not, how might he do so?

Most students will likely feel that Zinczenko succeeds in making clear that his topic matters. He starts out by noting the lawsuit against McDonald’s, something that has gotten significant publicity, and he goes on to document the skyrocketing rates of childhood diabetes, directly linking them to obesity. Further, paragraph 9 provides an eye-opening example of the staggering calorie count of a supposedly dietetic chicken salad offered by one company.

Radley Balko, What You Eat Is Your Business (p. 157)

1.      What does Radley Balko claim in this essay? How do you know? What position is he responding to? Cite examples from the text to support your answer.

Balko’s claim in the essay is that government intervention to curtail obesity (including limiting access to high-calorie foods, requiring menu labeling of nutritional value and fat and calorie content, and taxing high-calorie food), as well as treating obesity as a public health issue, is wrong-headed; instead, personal responsibility should be encouraged. He also argues the larger point that the socialization and government subsidization of medicine leads people to become less responsible for their own health and encourages them to continue to behave in unhealthy ways. See paragraphs 2–3, 5, and 8–9.

2.      Reread the last sentence of paragraph 1: “In other words, bringing government between you and your waistline.” This is actually a sentence fragment, but it functions as metacommentary, inserted by Balko to make sure that readers see his point. Imagine that this statement were not there, and reread the first three paragraphs. Does it make a difference in how you read this piece?

Without the fragment that ends the first paragraph, Balko’s negative stance would not be clear through the end of the second paragraph (unless one noted the negative connotation of language such as “agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives”). But he makes his position explicit at the beginning of paragraph 3.

3.      Notice the direct quotations in paragraph 7. How has Balko integrated these quotations into his text—how has he introduced them, and what, if anything, has he said to explain them and tie them to his own text? Are there any changes you might suggest? How do key terms in the quotations echo one another? (See Chapter 3 for advice on quoting, and pp. 109–11 for help on identifying key terms.)

The first is a direct quotation, which Balko introduces by naming both the speaker and the organization she represents. The second is not so much a quotation as a phrase included in quotation marks so that Balko can distance himself from it;  “personal responsibility bias” is a concept promulgated by trial lawyers that Balko finds ridiculous. He comments directly on the title of the ABC News documentary as a way of emphasizing the point made in the two previous quotations that the idea of personal responsibility, in his view, is being given short shrift.  

4.      Balko makes his own position about the so-called obesity crisis very clear, but does he consider any of the objections that might be offered to his position? If so, how does he deal with those objections? If not, what objections might he have raised?

Although Balko offers examples of what is being proposed by those he opposes and provides a brief summary of their views, he does not consider direct objections to his own position in any detail. For example, he doesn’t explore the issue of the cost benefits of governmental intervention to curtail obesity, an issue that would be raised in opposition to his “leave it up to individuals” approach.