Ap Lang Food Inc Logical Fallacies Essay Sample For College

The logical fallacies allow the film to capture the attention and emotions Of its udience by giving a reason for their concerns, but without any legitimate statistics or facts to back up their claims. The use of these logical fallacies in the film help strengthen its arguments by making the audience feel as if the corporations are exploiting the farmers and their traditions, causing families to go through avoidTABLE obstacles, and making the companies and government look like the “bad guys” in this web that is called the food industry.

However, the reality is that the food industry isn’t as evil as depicted by the fallacious arguments in the film. To begin with, the film argues against he corporate interests and works to make its audience view the companies as exploitative of being the ones who are exploiting the farmers and taking them away from their traditions. For example, at one point, one of the farmers who was interviewed said, “theyThey not only changed the chicken, they changed the farmer… oday chicken farmers no longer control their birds. A company like Tyson owns the birds from the day they are dropped off to the day they are slaughtered. ” This statement makes companies like Tyson look like they are completely responsible for the way that farmers now farm nd for the lack of control that a farmer has over the way that he choseschooses to raise his chickens. This logical fallacy doesnt state how such companies control the chickens and how they have “changed the farmer. The lack of hard facts behind this statement makes it illogical because it doesn’t back up its claims with credible pieces of evidence; however, the logical fallacy works in the film’s favor because it makes the audience emotional towards the farmers’ deprivation of the basic traditions at the expense of working under big companies. The audience being the iddle class progressives, who value hard work, fair competition, and oppose corruption, would find Tyson’s control over the farmers oppressive and something that would make them angry and even somewhat hostile towards companies like Tyson, working in the favor of the film.

Additionally, the film goes on to say “animals and workers are being abused,” but doesn’t necessarily offer any examples of the ways that companies seem to be abusing both the animals and the workers. This use of excessive pathos and guilt by association makes the viewer feel sympathy towards not only the nimals, but also the workers as a result of the corporate abuse; they are being forced to do something they don’t really want to. No logic exists behind the argument being stated since we don’t have any hard facts or statistics to prove how the animals and humans are being abused and to what extent.

Furthermore, the film, Food, Inc. , uses its logical fallacies to make the audience feel as if the food industry is the cause of families facing obstacles that deal with processed food such as diabetes and even fatal reactions to the food.. The film uses a story of a child’s death r esulting the death of a child rom E Coli poisoning acquired after eating a processed hamburger. Even though the story of the young child’s death and its toll on the mother arewas very heart wrenching and hard to listen to, they don’t it didn’t logically support the film’s argument with facts or statistics.

It simply allowed the film to pull on the emotional side of its audience by, once again, making them think of how bad the food processing business really is, but this was only one case, and E coli has been a problem for many years now. It didn’t offer any statistics such as howas how many more people have died from E Coli or the ncrease in E Coli related deaths from the 50s till now as a result of eating processed foods. The use of excessive pathos allowed the film to strengthen its argument by emotionally connecting to its audience, audience.

It made it seem as if the food industry is the only reason for this mother’s suffering and emotional distress causing the audience to lean towards the mother and her story and once again see the food industry as the “bad guys” who are ruining our households and families. but failed to act as a truly logical reasoning as to why the food industry is corrupted and seen as something that is putting our ives in danger. Likewise, the film talked about another family that was having trouble managing their dietary needs and the importance of living a healthy lifestyle.

Once again the use of excessive pathos not only made the family look completely incapTABLE of doing anything different, but it also made the food industry look “evil” and inconsiderate. The family talked about how they are forced to buy fast food for nearly all of their meals while the dad suffers from problems such as diabetes which is getting worse; they lack the ability to be TABLE to live a healthy lifestyle. The blame for this was put on the food ndustry for having foods that lack any nutritional value and foods that lead to health problems.

The film made it seem as if the food industry is the cause of the diabetes and will be the reason if the dad ends up losing the ability to function properly, The family talked about how they don’t have enough time or money to buy fresh produce from the grocery store; therefore, they are reluctant to buy fast food for many of their meals despite the fact that the dad suffers from diabetes. This makes it seem as if its the food industrys fault that they are not being TABLE to live a healthy lifestyle and thusthus supporting he films intended argument: we are put in danger by the food items that should guarantee our survival.

However, this is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t provide any reasons, facts, or statistics as to how difficult it actually would be if they decided to live only on buying healthy and fresh foods from the supermarket as compared to spending $1 1 on fast food for just one meal that doesn’t offer much nutritional value. The fallacy works with the argument of the film by allowing the viewer, who belongs to a middle class working household, to once again connect emotionally to the family.

The audience ember might also have similar problems in which they rely on fast food for many of their meals and suffer from health related problems, as a result of their dependence on fast food. and see the The food industry is therefore seen as as something that is truly putting us in danger of health problems and taking away the necessity to buy healthy and locally grown produce. Lastly, Food, Inc. , uses logical fallacies to make the food industry look like the “bad guys” in this whole situation.

For instance, the film interviewed a farmer who doesn’t work for the big corporations and doesn’t work with mass roduction of chickens or cows. He at one point says, “the USDA tried to shut us down because this Was considered unsanitary, can you imagine? ” while pointing to the beautiful outdoor system they believed they had. This is a misrepresentation of the facts because he doesn’t offer the complete details about their dispute, but only says that the USDA tried to shut them down as a result of them working outdoors.

He doesn’t give the exact words, letters, or anything that the USDA issued to him that would allow the viewers to see why they considered the outdoor operation to be unsanitary, other than the information he gives about . he amount of ammonia present in the chicken that was tested. However, that point is quickly overlooked and the ridiculousness of why the USDA would do such a thing and try to close down such a peaceful and calm operation that they seem to have going, is highlighted.

This logical fallacy allows the film to further its argument against the corruption by the corporate interests and makes its audience look at the industry leaders as the “bad guys” for trying to shut down such a peaceful and calm operation that the film along with the farmer portrays. The audience is tricked into thinking that the food industry might be against this outdoor peration because it doesn’t follow the “processed food” guidelines and doesn’t want the production of the all-natural food products, even though that is not the case.

But the way that the film uses its fallacious arguments as mentioned earlier, creates a negative image of the food industry in the eyes of the middle class progressives. Furthermore, the film interviewed another farmer who was against the corporate interests in farming, who said “… The reason our government is supporting corn is because companies like Tyson and Smithfield, have an interest in purchasing corn below cost of roduction… They use the extensive amount Of money they have to lobby congressman and give us the kind of farm bills we now have. ” This once again works in the favor of Food, Inc. ecause it allows the audience to hear from an average farmer who shares his personal story of how he is being manipulated and given high bills as a result of these big corporations working with the government and using their power and money to do as they please. However, this is a logical fallacy because the farmer doesn’t offer any details about when and where companies such as Tyson and Smithfield have lobbied ongressman and used their extensive amounts of money to work against farmers like him and nor does he show how his farm bills have increased over the years.

This statement is pure opinion that is being portrayed as facts by the film, but it does work to further the film’s argument of how the food system is being corrupted by the corporate interests. The highlighting of the corruption by the logical fallacies works with the audience of the middle class progressives who oppose the corruption and therefore will oppose the food industry and their corporate interests. As can be seen, the use of logical fallacy is clearly apparent in the movie, Food, Inc. , working to support its intended argument against the processed food industry.

Bono Speech Analysis

Bono employs various rhetorical strategies to elicit inspiration and capture the audience’s attention. His use of vivid and descriptive language allows the audience to envision his collaboration with Larry Summers. Bono utilizes a metaphor to emphasize the challenges encountered while working with Summers, stating, “The religious right started acting like student protesters. And finally, after a floor fight in the House of Representatives, we got the money – four three five million.” The notion that he requires 20,000 individuals chanting his name to have a satisfactory day appears surreal to others.

By talking condescendingly about being a musician, he aims to grab the audience’s attention. If he were to simply enter and start his speech by proclaiming himself as a cool rock star who wants to aid the third world, it would not resonate with the audience as they would view him as just another celebrity boasting about their wealth. Bono paints the image that he devoted time and effort to his philanthropy, rather than simply throwing away a small portion of his fortune to show off.

Bono introduces himself and discusses global issues, emphasizing the importance of grassroots movements. He provides an example of a successful movement that raised funds for impoverished countries, specifically Monogamous. In Monogamous, debt payments were reduced by 42%, resulting in a $14 million increase in healthcare spending. Bono urges students to take action and make a positive impact on the world. He acknowledges that finding solutions requires intelligent individuals: “I think I’ve come here to ask you for your help. This is a big problem. We need some smart people working on it.” Bono uses statistics to validate the effect of money already donated to Monogamous as part of his logical argument (Logos). Additionally, he appeals to emotions (Pathos) by sharing a touching story about a doctor in Monogamous who could purchase two bicycles and employ two nurses with assistance from fundraisers, allowing them to serve more people efficiently. To emphasize the importance of empathy and global cooperation, he asks: “Isn’t ‘Love thy neighbor in the global village so inconvenient?’”

GOD writes us these lines but we must sing them. The passage evokes Pathos, highlighting that society has become overly focused on materialism and narcissism, urging students to prioritize following their hearts and utilizing their intellect. Towards the conclusion of his address, the speaker reminisces about his childhood in Dublin, where he observed America with awe, witnessing their ability to send a man to the moon and believing in their limitless potential. He poses the question to the audience, questioning if this belief still holds true. Ultimately, he asserts that they have the power to restore this truth.

I believe that many Americans are proud of their country and often mention ‘the American dream’. However, Bono is now suggesting that it may no longer be a land of endless opportunities. This revelation has certainly impacted the audience. Perhaps this is the moment when the audience becomes convinced that they have the power to make a difference and that their country still embodies the idea that anything is possible. It is challenging to fully analyze how Bono reaches his audience without witnessing the speech firsthand. Hence, it is important for those who wish to gain insight from his speech to watch it, particularly young people.

Despite his intention to connect with the audience, Bono’s speech did not receive the desired reaction. The crowd’s response was minimal, with only a few handclaps and laughter that fell short of his expectations. While discussing global issues, there was a noticeable sense of detachment. Nonetheless, I maintain that it was a well-crafted speech and trust that it made an impact on viewers who watched it on television, even if it didn’t resonate with those present at Harvard University.

Cafeteria Food Research Paper

The government should not impose restrictions on cafeteria food in schools Headed by First Lady Michelle Obama, there has een a recent push for healthier lunches in schools. Guidelines are being set on calories, fat, and salt intake. Fruits and vegeTABLEs are becoming the only sides sold. Wheat grains are replacing white grains. Schools are transitioning to low fat and low calorie. In some schools, it goes beyond lunches. Schools all over are replacing the traditional junk food sold in vending machines with healthier food, and even some schools are not allowing certain snacks.

However, though it may sound like a good idea, it is not reasonTABLE in any sense. First of all, the healthy federal school lunch program is very costly in any ways. For example, the current amount of money given per meal per child is $2. 74 in San Francisco. This amount of money is given bythe government to fund each child’s meal. Dana Woldow, a mother of three in the San Francisco school district would like to increase that amount to 55. 00 per child (Christensen). That is almost double the amount spent on each child and the government cannot afford that.

Also, “the Obama administration asked for more than $1 0 billion to improve the program over 1 0 years” (Christensen). With the amount of debt the nation is in, it seems like that is not affordTABLE. The healthy school lunch program is also costing schools. The Voorheesville Central School District in New York has recently quit the program. “The district says it lost $30,000 dollars in three months” (Khan). Another district in New York is $1 00,000 in debt after only a year (Thompson). This is money that could be used in so many other places in the schools.

Clearly this push for healthier lunches comes at a very high price for schools. Many students are not in favor of the new federal school lunch program. They do not enjoy eating low calorie and fat free food. While the government an try and feed students low calorie, low fat, and whole grain or wheat, they cannot be forced to like it. Marecas Wilson, a student at Eastside Elementary in Clinton, Mississippi, says “I was just trying to eat it so wouldn’t be hungry later on” (Hill). If students are not even enjoying their lunch, then there is no point to even serving them lunch.

Students at Wallace County High in Sharon Springs, Kansas, were so fed up that they even made a video about it. It is titled “We are Hu ngry,” and is a parody to “We are Young. ” Some students are even boycotting school lunches, such as 70% Of the students at Mukwonago High School in Mukwonago, Wisconsin (McLaughlin). Because students do not enjoy what is being served, the government should not try to make school lunches healthier. Also, this new plan is not enough for many students. The healthy school lunch program limits high school students to between 700 and 800 calories.

Upon hearing this number, many people might think that is way more than kids need. However, half of the students need more than that. Hunter Chinn, for example, “is a 6-foot-5-inch, 210- pound football player who, based on his size and active lifestyle, needs more than 4,700 calories daily to maintain his weight” (Hill). Lunches at 800 calories definitely do not meet that requirement. Though he can pack his own food, why shouldn’t he be TABLE to get the sustenance that he needs right where he is? Athletes who have practice after school cannot get by on the new school lunch program.

They burn too many calories during practice that it is almost dangerous. They depend on the food at school, but it is not fulfilling them anymore. In theory, these programs are literally starving athletes. Since they do not get enough to eat, this causes dizziness and less focus during practice because food is all they can think about. Rachelle Chin, a freshman softball player from Clarence, Missouri, claims “school lunches are now so slight it once left her with a headache” (Hill). Another example is senior Nick Blohm from Mukwonago High School.

His coach estimates that between lifting weights before school and practice after school Nick has burned more than 3000 calories. “But the calorie cap for his school lunch? 850 calories” (McLaughlin). Obviously this is in no way enough food so Nick is being starved by the new school lunch program. Though most students clearly do not need 3000 calories for lunch, it should be availTABLE for those who do. If the government knew that this is happening, why does it continue with this program? It should be halted immediately. On top of that, low fat food is much less filling in itself.

So, while the government is restricting students’ calorie intake, they are also feeding students less filling food. No wonder they are going hungry. Clearly, this is not a good program for students. Furthermore, the new school lunch program is not even effective in many schools. Michelle Obama would like to end obesity through this program, but it is actually backfiring. Because students do not get enough fats during lunch nd throughout the day, they eat even more than normal when they get home. A study was done in 2003 that involved 41 schools, more than 1 700 students.

They were “served lower-calorie and lower-fat lunches and were taught about healthy eating and lifestyles. While the children took in fewer calories from fat at school, they experienced no significant reduction in their percentage of body fat” (Tennant). This is because students may be eating healthier at school, but they go home and binge because they are so hungry. Schools are in theory, depriving students of their needs. Continuing on this dea, students are simply hassled by these new school lunch programs because now they have to Stop at the gas station before school just to purchase what they used to get at school.

This is another example of how the programs are not successful. On a music video parody of “We are Young’ titled “We are Hungry” made by students, the lyrics say “My friends are at the corner store getting junk so they don’t waste away’ (blk5348). This is exactly what students are doing, and they should not have to. Not only are these government programs ineffective, but they cannot even be proven to healthier. Food that is low calorie, low sugar, low fat, and so on, are filled with chemicals that are not good for the body whatsoever. In fact, they could even be worse.

There is so much toxic stuff in low fat and low calorie foods that the body simply cannot digest. Professor Kerin ODea, director of the Sansom Institute for Health Research at the University of South Australia says that “While it’s true we need to be careful about how much and what sort of fat we eat, many low-fat foods are unhealthy in other ways – usually because of high amounts of added sugar or salt” (Are). So how can the government say what is best for students to eat? Also, experts say that wheat bread is no healthier or even less healthy than typical white bread.

Cardiologist William Davis, MD, claims that wheat actually causes weight gain. He states, “Todays wheat may be dangerous because it greatly elevates blood sugar levels, leading to insulin spikes that cause chronic inflammation and excess belly fat” (Davis). This shows that no particular food that cafeterias are trying to feed students IS proven to be any healthier than what used to be sold. In some extreme cases, this push for healthier lunches can be detrimental to a student. Schools have to be careful of the way they present this topic.

The programs present this idea that weight loss is good, that only thin is healthy” (Kirkey). Because of this, students have taken to this idea and developed eating disorders. “In one case, a 14-year-old boy who was normal weight lost 11. 5 kilograms over seven months after he began severely restricting food… in response to a ‘healthy living’ program at his school” (Kirkey). This is not something that the government meant to happen, but it is a definite effect of the new school lunch programs. Students should be allowed to eat whatever they want in the cafeteria, which would prevent some from developing eating isorders.

Schools can go about obesity prevention in a different way. They could simply inform students about it rather than forcing them to eat what the government deems as best for them. Many schools teach healthy eating in health class, which is where it should stay. Then students should be TABLE to choose to be healthy or not. It is not the governments responsibility to force children to be healthy. Students should not be forced to eat food that the government wants them to eat. The new school lunch program is not safe or cost effective for schools. It leaves students hungry, sometimes even starving.

It is not even effective in preventing obesity because students continue to eat what they want outside of school. It is not up to the government to decide what students can eat and if they should be healthy. Obviously kids should be healthy, but the way the government is going about it is not right. Some extreme cases have even developed eating disorders due to this push for healthiness in school cafeterias. The government should not be restricting or even watching what students eat in the cafeteria. A little dessert here and there is good for everybody, especially people who work as hard as students do.

error: Content is protected !!