Making Authentic Enchiladas (ANALYSIS)
Making Enchiladas & Right Decisions Analysis
In this editorial, the value of ethnic foods is reassessed. There is an issue made obvious in the first paragraph, where I state that the United States is made up of a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities. Restaurant owners see this diversity as a good thing because they have been able to “fuse[d] ethnic foods and flavors to newfangled American palates”. The real problem is paraphrased at the end of the first paragraph, where I explain that this ability (to fuse culinary styles) that restaurateurs have has in reality put to shame the name of some ethnic cultures, such as Mexico. In my editorial I employ pathos with colors, font, and word choice, hoping to draw from the reader’s emotional appeal.
I establish my ethos in the second paragraph when I reference to two different informational sources—the first being a book that clearly reaffirms the issue at stake. This paragraph ensures my credibility to the readers, demonstrating much more solid contextual information found through investigation of the controversy. The second informational source that I referred to only emphasizes my main argument even more, by strengthening the value of ethnic authenticity in consumers’ eyes. I solidified my argument by paraphrasing Sukalakamala, who clearly argues that authenticity in ethnic restaurants is superior to all other factors in the dining experience.
Another strong rhetorical strategy is included in the third paragraph where I concisely offer a rebuttal. I stated that “…many consumers may be oblivious to the fact that those [ethnic] restaurants have been Americanized...”. As you can see, I was careful with my word choice. Even though I suggested that consumers (and even some of those who work for these infamous restaurants) may not be fully aware of ethnic food Americanization, I chose the word oblivious, rather than unaware, because of its negative
connotation. The negative feeling evoked in this sentence furthers
In this editorial, the value of ethnic foods is reassessed. There is an issue made obvious in the first paragraph, where I state that the United States is made up of a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities. Restaurant owners see this diversity as a good thing because they have been able to “fuse[d] ethnic foods and flavors to newfangled American palates”. The real problem is paraphrased at the end of the first paragraph, where I explain that this ability (to fuse culinary styles) that restaurateurs have has in reality put to shame the name of some ethnic cultures, such as Mexico. In my editorial I employ pathos with colors, font, and word choice, hoping to draw from the reader’s emotional appeal.
I establish my ethos in the second paragraph when I reference to two different informational sources—the first being a book that clearly reaffirms the issue at stake. This paragraph ensures my credibility to the readers, demonstrating much more solid contextual information found through investigation of the controversy. The second informational source that I referred to only emphasizes my main argument even more, by strengthening the value of ethnic authenticity in consumers’ eyes. I solidified my argument by paraphrasing Sukalakamala, who clearly argues that authenticity in ethnic restaurants is superior to all other factors in the dining experience.
Another strong rhetorical strategy is included in the third paragraph where I concisely offer a rebuttal. I stated that “…many consumers may be oblivious to the fact that those [ethnic] restaurants have been Americanized...”. As you can see, I was careful with my word choice. Even though I suggested that consumers (and even some of those who work for these infamous restaurants) may not be fully aware of ethnic food Americanization, I chose the word oblivious, rather than unaware, because of its negative
connotation. The negative feeling evoked in this sentence furthers