2 April 2013
Argument Analysis Essay
In the first given argument “Absolutely. Government Has No Business Interfering with What You Eat” written by Bradley Balko policy analyst with the Cato Institute, Balko claims that our government should work towards a personal sense of responsibility for our individual health and well-being. Though it is reasonable to assume Balko makes valid points in his article there are little facts to support this claim.
In the second given argument “Not If Blaming the Victim Is Just an excuse to Let Industry Off the Hook” written by Kelly Brownell a professor and chair of psychology at Yale University and Marrion Nestle a professor in the Department of Nutrition at New York University.
This article is supported by professors that have degrees and knowledge that support their claim making Brownell and Nestle’s argument the strongest.
In the article written by Balkoa it states more opinion then actual facts to back his claim. He assumes that all people that are overweight are so because they eat too much. This hurts his argument because he does not take into account health issues that could contribute to an obesity problem. He also implies that there should be a fat tax on high calorie foods (263). His claims also go against the topic of being against the government’s ideal with obesity problems in the U.S. Though he has some positive claims like taking snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines, (263) the government working to foster sense of responsibility for our health and wellbeing, and making it so that individuals taking responsibility for their own diet and lifestyle are more likely to make better decisions when paying for their own consequences and he counters the positive with negative statements like no public health care to those who the perceive to be unhealthy. Again this hurts his claim because he assumes that all people who are overweight are so because they make poor health...