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.
