Josh Beckelhimer Professor Black English 1020 18 March 2013 Fast-food Gone Bad An argument is an implicit dialogue that has importance to appeals. This is done by using different elements of an argument, in which the different parts are the claim (or thesis), the support, the evidence, the warrant, the appeals to the audience, and the counter argument that is being used in the scenario. In this essay that Michele Simon has wrote she examines the unhealthy choices of the some restaurants and explains on how they’re misleading the healthy people in the World.
In Michele Simon’s “Even the ‘Healthy’ Choices at Fast Food Restaurants Are Unhealthy”, uses all of the parts and the elements of an argument in her essay. The first statement that Simon makes is “In response to sharpening criticism from nutrition advocates, fast-food franchises have added supposedly ‘healthy’ options to their menus” (Simon 473). This would be Simon’s claim, which would be the thesis statement of her argument. This is what the author or the person who wrote the situation is trying to tell you what they’re trying to answer or trying to prove in their argument.
Arguments typically have three types of claims; claim of fact, claim of value, and claim of policy. In Simon’s argument her thesis is a claim of policy because she is trying to make a solution to figure out there problem and make it better so there can be something done about this or try to make better. We know there are many problems with fast food and Simon proves her argument by going on and saying different reasons for why this is true in her essay. The warrant is a belief or principle that can be assumed based on the argument.
The warrant is never stated in great detail, and it must be drawn from statements made by the arguer. While it is not said by Simon her warrant is still clear and well understood. In Simon’s argument as implies that fast-food restaurants are not committed to the well being of their patrons (Simon). Also it is said that Simon thinks that fast-food restaurants are misleading to consumers who are trying to eat healthy. This also warrants that menu items are misleading and sometimes confusing for the consumer that is buying the product.
The consumer could think that they were getting something healthier then a cheeseburger, but in all truth it’s actually worse than that cheeseburger. She must appeal to her audience in order to win the argument, by saying that a majority of fast-food restaurants are not telling the truth about their menu items and that there not healthy. The evidence is used to give strength to the argument and to prove the support for the claim. Many forms of evidence are found in examples, statistics, and expert is brought in to give valuable feedback on the argument.
Simon provides many forms of evidence to back up her claim that she has possessed. In her first form of evidence she implies “The new Happy Meal option, which includes a sugar-loaded caramel dipping sauce” (Simon 473). She is implying that this idea is not much better then French fries because the caramel dipping sauce is full of sugar. Simon’s next problem was that she mentions “instead of a coke, kids can now have apple juice or milk” (Simon 475). This evidence Simon is trying to say that the apple juice and milk is still full of sugars and it’s still not good for your children.
The next support of evidence for her claim is that she implies that “calling the chicken ‘crispy’ instead of fried is misleading” (Simon 474). She mentions that because if a person hears this that would automatically think that this is healthy salad. She is implying that is should just be called fried because so many people could get this confused. The logos support and evidence has support from multiple studies with facts and stats, given as evidence. Ethos supports from appeals to individuals in dealing with menu items and the choices on it. Pathos is used throughout her essay by giving thought to how unhealthy fast-food is.
She mentions that “For a toddler who needs 1,000 calories per day, a Happy Meal consisting of four Chicken McNuggets, small French fries, and a low-fat chocolate milk totals 580 calories, or more than half of a child’s daily recommended calorie intake” (Simon 475). Simon is saying that no matter what you’re getting at a fast-food restaurant it’s going to be unhealthy for you, and your children. The counter argument Simon takes into consideration the argument opposing her claim, Simon doesn’t spend much time about a counter argument, but it is addressed in her essay. Simon grants “Go Active!
Adult Happy Meal” (Simon 476). Which fell through and done away with because it didn’t work. Simon points out “In 2004 Ruby Tuesday reduced some portion sizes and added healthier items” (Simon 476). Another thing that Simon points out that was that “Wendy’s garnered great press in February 2005 for its ‘bold’ decision to add fresh fruit to its menu” (Simon 476). Simon has all of these examples for the counter argument that the fast-food industry is getting somewhat better. In conclusion there are many parts of an argument, and Simon uses all of these parts to successfully get her argument across effectively.
She makes her claim, and then backs it up with the right support and to make his claim even stronger. Then she successfully gets the warrant across which has great appeal to the audience and is needed to make the claim that much stronger. Then finally Simon uses her counter argument to address to her audience what has been happening in the years past to try and fix the problem. Works Cited Simon, Michele. “Even the ‘Healthy’ Choices at Fast-Food Restaurants Are Unhealthy. “. 473-75. Print. Excerpt from The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide. Boston: Patricia Bostian, 2006. N. pag.