Rhetorical Analysis: IS Junk Food Really Cheaper - Essay Example

Rhetorical Analysis and fallacies: IS Junk Food Really Cheaper? The rhetorical situation of this paper is to argue for the consumption of the organically home-cooked food, as opposed to the consumption of the fast foods. Arguments have been put forward regarding why people opt to consume the fast foods, at the expense of the home-cooked foods. According to an article by Mark Bitman, “IS Junk Food Really Cheaper?”, the major argument in this respect is that fast foods are cheaper compared to the home-cooked foods (Bittman, 660). The other argument is related to the calorie value of the fast foods, where the proponents of the consumption of fast foods hold that they have a high calorie value than the home cooked foods. While the accuracy behind these two arguments is still in doubt, it is the question regarding whether the American population needs to consume foods with less or more calories that needs focus. Overall, the health harm that is caused to the population by the consumption of the junk foods is actually higher, compared to the benefits (Bittman, 662). Thus, the consumption of the fast foods is no cheaper option for the American society, whether assessed from the financial, social or health cost perspective. The fact that fast foods are considered cheaper than the home-cooked meals has become the foundation on which the overweight problem, especially associated with the low income people, is explained (Bittman, 660). Most consider it cheaper and thus prefer the fast foods, for example to purchase a meal of four at McDonalds that will cost them $28, as opposed to preparing a meal for four a home, which is perceived to be more costly. However, the truth is that a home cooked meal that offers the same dietary value as a McDonalds’ meal for four might cost even less. For example a home-cooked meal that has the same dietary value as the McDonalds fast food meal may cost $9-14 to feed four or even six people (Bittman, 660). More so, when some of the ingredients are replaced with cheaper alternatives, the meal for four can cost around $14 when cooked at home which is exactly half the price of the same dietary value meal a McDonalds (Bittman, 661). In this respect, money is not the actual factor that causes people to consume fast foods at the expense of the home-cooked foods. Time has also been considered a factor that makes the Americans to opt for the fast foods, since they lack ample time for cooking. However, the truth has proven to the contrary, owing to the fact that an average American has at least one-and-a-half hour each day to watch television (Bittman, 663). This simply means that the Americans can have time to cook, and in fact cooking once a week at home is better than not cooking at all. Further, access to the sources of organic foods such as the supermarkets and the farmers markets has also been argued as a factor responsible for a higher consumption of fast foods, at the expense of home-cooked meals (Bittman, 662). The additional factor that has been argued in favor of the fast foods is the lack of requisite cooking skills. However, the truth is that the engineering behind the processed foods, coupled with the manufacturers enticing promotions have caused the Americans to get literary addicted to the fast foods, even when the home-cooked alternative is still cheaper and better (Bittman, 662). Logos is an element that has been applied effectively in this article, owing to the fact that the article gives a logic and consistent argument against the popularity of fast foods over the home-cooked foods. The article has effectively managed to show that a combination of different ingredients can produce home cooked meals that are cheaper than the fast foods. The argument creates a logical appeal, since there is a direct computation of a meal for four that would cost $28 at McDonalds and an equally dietary valued meal that is cooked at home cost between $9 and $14 (Bittman, 660). The authority aspect is also well represented in the article, owing to the fact that the writer of the article is currently a professional journalism specializing solely on home cooking. This simply gives the writer the authority deserved in speaking on this subject, having specialized in matters that deal with home cooking, which allows him the vast knowledge in the finer details such as the cost of ingredients and the time required to prepare a meal at home (Bittman, 663). Emotional appeal has been achieved by the writer, through touching on the subject of the relationship between the fast foods consumption and the overweight problem, which is a sensitive issue in the modern American society (Zinczenko, Noll and Metz, n.p.). Such argument captures the emotions of the audience in such a way that the audience becomes persuaded to adapt the home-cooking alternative, which is not associated much with the overweight problem. A major rhetoric fallacy applied in the article is the argument to the effect that processed foods trigger “addition-like neuro-addictive responses”, which then means that the more we eat, the more we need to fulfill the pleasure desirable in the brain (Bittman, 662). While the argument that fast foods and processed foods have a certain level of addictive effect on the consumers might be true, it is farfetched to argue that generally the more fast food we consume the more we need due to a brain chemical process that has not been adequately backed by scientific evidence. The other argument by the article is that time and accessibility are not factors accounting for the increase in the consumption of fast foods. This is also a rhetorical fallacy, owing to the fact that most of the fast food consumers consider time and convenience of accessing the foods, more than the cost and the calorie aspects of the fast foods. Certainly the cost of fast foods is way higher compared to the fresh food costs (Oakton Community College, n.p.). In conclusion, the argument put forward by the article is effective to a greater extent, owing to the fact that most of the factors argued have been supported by logical evidence and reasoning. The reasoning that America needs the consumption of low calorie foods as opposed to the high-calorie foods is highly logical. The argument that home-cooked foods can actually cost less is also logical, since it has been evaluated based on the dietary value and the ingredients costs. The argument that the processed foods sell due to a huge advertisement investment by the manufacturers is also accurate. However, the argument that the fast foods are addictive as a result of a brain chemical process might be farfetched. Overall, the article is well presented and argued, and thus is recommended for a special award on passion for encouraging home cooking. Works Cited Bittman, Mark. IS Junk Food Really Cheaper? Bedford St. Martins, 660-664. Print. Oakton Community College. “Fast-Food vs. Fresh Food Costs”, 2002. Accessed 22 February 22, 2015. < http://www.oakton.edu/user/0/eermolen/Publication1.pdf> Zinczenko, Dave, Noll, Eric and Metz, Jenn. “Real Money: Fast Food Versus Home-Cooked Meals”. ABC News, January 22, 2014. Accessed 22 February 22, 2015. < http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2014/01/real-money-fast-food-versus-home-cooked-meals/ > Read More