Claire Churchwell.rhetorical

Claire Churchwell Rhetorical Analysis It is no secret that the ever-growing problem of obesity in America must be dealt with. In order to support a national health care budget, congress officials have suggested a soda tax. With this tax, it is expected that with a three-cent tax per twelve-ounce sugary beverage, the tax would matriculate 24 billion dollars over the next four years.1 Reducing obesity, diabetes and other illnesses caused by poor diets, as well as setting aside a budget for health care seems ideal. However, this “sin tax” could be taking logic and throwing it out the window. Some believe it defies ethics to tax every naughty behavior that the average American participates in. Muhtar Kent and David Leonhardt offer a side to each argument. Muhtar Kent in “Coke Didn’t Make America Fat”, utilizes logical facts, logos, and emotion, pathos, to support is argument, claiming “Americans need more exercise, not another tax” while Leonhardt relies on exaggerated claims and pathos in “Sodas a Tempting Tax” to backbone is argument that it’s the most logical way to achieve the nations goal2. First3, Kent supports his argument using statistics, logic and pathos. He presents statistical data provided by reputable sources such as the National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Instead of putting4 all the blame on sugary beverages like soda, he forces the reader to realize that the

bigger issue at stake is how Americans fail engage in necessary physical activity. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that 60% of Americans are not regularly active and 25% of Americans are not active at all.” This statistic is legitimate proof that there is clearly a bigger issue at hand: much needed exercise5. He further elaborates on this point by stating that soda is not the primary cause of weight gain considering 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages that exclude soda all together6. He continues to explain the obvious lack of ethics in this approach to a health care budget, where is the line drawn to taxing naughty American’s naughty behavior? He also states7 that the two States that have already put a soda tax in effect have two of the highest rates of obesity: Arkansas and West Virginia8. Proving that one of the main issues they are trying to fix is falling short of being eradicated. He moves into a Pathos approach by targeting the guilty conscious present in Americans9. He states that we need to take responsibility for our own diets, considering the many lawsuits over McDonalds fast food weight gain as well as anyone who does not like to accept responsibility for their own problem, this is a very concrete way to go10. Anyone feeling badly about their weight will undoubtedly feel worse by being reminded it is ultimately their fault: resulting in the urge to want to change it. His second killer11 attempt at pathos “Policy makers should stop spending their valuable time demonizing an industry that

directly employs more than 220,000 people in the U.S.” By reminding the reader that hundreds of thousands of jobs that the soda industry is responsible, you12 almost feel like a bad American for even secondguessing their motives and positive contribution. Finally, Kent reminds us that there are many healthier pop options that many Americans opt for instead of the full-calorie alternative13. Leonhardt relies on false logic as well as pathos to support his argument. He compares soft drinks to “risky teen behaviors” such as underage drinking, drug use and promiscuous sex14. In an attempt to get people wildly involved, he continually reminds us that soft drinks are to diabetes as tobacco is to lung cancer. Not only is his comparison vague, it is not supported by logic or statistics. If he is referring to the number of deaths per year, tobacco related deaths are at 5.4 million per year, while obesity related deaths (including diabetes and other preexisting health conditions) comes in at 112,000 per year. Smoking is an accessory activity, while drinking fluids is not. He tries to make the argument that alcohol is no less threatening than a soda, a claim completely devoid of truth, considering the extreme addictiveness and sobriety altering effects that alcohol holds. His argument is filled with fallacies such as these15. He uses pathos in an attempt to elicit genuine remorse for those without sufficient health care by stating “Most public health scourges have a brutal way of holding down the associated medical cost: they kill people”, this fallacy leads readers to believe that

Americans lives are literally in these officials’ hands, and they drop them. In reality, public health care is much more complex an issue than he portrays16. He attempts to make the warrant that thanks to the poor economic situation America is facing, soda would be the single best candidate for a “sin tax”, however backs this statement without support, leaving it completely irrelevant. While each article represents opposing sides to the same argument, that is not what puts ether article at an advantage. Kent’s faults lie almost entirely in his reputability. Considering he is the CEO of Coca-Cola Company, most readers will undoubtedly let his bias affect their interpretation of his article17. While he makes outstanding points supported by unbiased health organizations, most readers will not see through his implied opposing position to be able to appreciate the validity in his statements. Leonhardt’s article utilizes Kairos like Kent cannot. At this time, with the economy in the state that it is, people are desperate and in need of health care, three-cents more for a soda does not seem like a huge price to pay when, in return, many Americans will start to receive public health care. He does play on people’s emotions with the warrant of a need for health care18. Ultimately, the better article is the stronger argument. While each argument does touch upon weak and strong areas, Kent’s argument is supported by concrete information while Leonhardt rests comfortably on making false claims that lack validity and thus are fallacies19. His

second approach to target the reader’s soft side is too extreme to be taken legitimately. Finally, the articles’ context and audience are also factors in their arguments. The audience is the general American public, however the context of these articles plays an enormous role. The Wall Street Journal, a more conservative newspaper has published Kent’s article opposing an soda tax on the grounds its unethical and illogical.20 These ideas coming from an article in a more “right-aimed” newspaper are not surprising21. In contrast, the New York Times, an extremely22 liberal publication has featured Leonhardt’s article supporting public health care, as well as a tax that imposes on a citizens’ personal life and decisions. These sorts of socialist ideals are relevant to a left-aimed newspaper. The ethos of each writer is unique. While Muhtar Kent has a built-in bias, considering his job could be jeopardized, he seems to have developed a much more plausible argument while David Leonhardt, a seasoned writer who has a career in the field, is unable to develop a supportable23 argument. One may think that since the CEO of Coca-Cola has contributed to an article discussing the soda tax debate, that it would be filled with outrageous claims stemming from complete disgust for the idea. When actually the opposite has happened24. The strongest argument touches upon each rhetoric tool to fully develop a good argument, however, the most effective rhetoric tool is logos, the logical. Because when it comes down to what is right,

we cannot ignore the factual support of an argument.25 “Coke Didn’t Make America Fat” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455464 120581696.html “Sodas a Tempting Tax Target” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/economy/20leonhardt.ht ml?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255356399-Fuv0F6jD/ENeKJCrCn3rCw

Repetitive “tax”, could word differently I like my intro. It is strong and to the point but it still isn’t just the facts, it works into it. 1 2

I can’t decide if I like “First” as an opening word. I could have started right into it. 4 “Putting” could be replaced by the word placing. “Putting” sounds amateur. 5 I like this statistic here and I like how I went on to explain it. We were instructed to explain our quotations but I never did that in high school, I think it further strengthens the point. 6 Good statistic. 7 “states that the two States”, probably should have chosen a word synonymous with the first states. 8 Could rearrange this sentence so that the focus is directed toward the fault in the system rather than the states that are part of that. 3

Sort of awkward, maybe could have said “Americans’ guilty consciences” This could be put differently; it is not clear what I am getting at. 11 Unnecessary adjective 12 Could say “the reader” instead of “you”. 13 This could be a little too abrupt an ending. 14 I like that I included this absurdity. 15 I like this and all of the sentences leading up to it. They are to the point and prove my point without rambling. 16 These sentences sound good to me. 17 Good point. 18 Another very good point 19 I really like this sentence, it is strong and well put. 20 This sort of sounds like I am saying the reason they published the article is because it is unethical and illogical rather than the proposed tax 21 Could elaborate on why it is not surprising because of the relationship between a tax like that and a more “conservative” outlook. 22 Exaggeration 23 Better word would be “valid”, or some sort of synonym for that 24 “the opposite” has not happened….just not that. 25 The ending could have been a little stronger even though it finished with all the right points. 9

10