Jonathan Foer Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis

In Jonathan Foer’s argumentative essay “Let Them Eat Dog”, he makes a very convincing argument for the consumption of dog, a surprising topic to argue for. However, when one reads through his excerpt, it’s quite difficult to escape the sound logic he utilizes throughout the piece. Ranging from commentary on the taste of dog meat to points about the ecological impact it would have if the U.S. started eating dog, Foer is persuasive and reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that it begs the reader to question exactly why he would put so much effort into arguing for eating dog, something that most people won’t change their minds on no matter how logical the argument is. Foer even admits at the end of his essay that despite his best efforts, people

In fact, throughout the entirety of his excerpt, Foer bases almost all of his claims on reason and logic, otherwise known as logos. Although this can be seen all over his paper, the times where he debunks the common counter-claims to his own argument are the times where he is most effective and intriguing. On the top of page 604, Foer deflates the following arguments: “Don’t eat companion animals”, “Don’t eat animals with significant mental capacities”, and “it’s for good reason that the eternal taboos are taboo”. He does so in such a quick and logical fashion that he makes the previous counter-arguments sound ridiculous, even though on the surface they are fair points. He brings to light the fact that in other places in the world, dogs aren’t kept as companions. He also compares pigs to dogs, an animal commonly eaten yet he points out that pigs are just as intelligent as dogs. He also makes the claim that while it may be taboo in the U.S., in various places in the world it isn’t and there are no health risks to eating dog, making eating dog seem less like a taboo. On the surface it appears as if Foer is simply proving his other side wrong with logic. However, he is actually very manipulative in how he goes about incorporating logos within his essay. He cherry picks very easy arguments to argue against and even words them in a way that makes his logic even more effective. He even

In fact, within this claim he mentions dogs in a way that forces the reader to reflect on the claims he made about dogs earlier within the piece. Foer argues for the consumption of dog in a logical way in order to draw attention to a bigger issue: the treatment of animals in factory-farmed meat. While Foer might still be pro-eating dog, his entire argument that he presents throughout the essay is, essentially, a different perspective on the issue of factory-farmed meat. He relates this issue to the audience by bringing up a controversial topic, and while he may not convince his audience to eat dog, he at the very least shows that, logically, eating dog could make sense. Once he has made his point clear, he points to hypothetical situations of how dogs would be humanely prepared if they were to be eaten by stating, “we can all agree that if we’re going to eat them, we should kill them quickly and painlessly” (605). By doing this, it makes his final statements all the more effective and thought-provoking since the audience is subconsciously making the connection between how dogs should be treated as food and how other animals are currently being treated as food. Yet, he hides this connection under the guise of a harmless argument for the consumption of dogs, making his final argument a realization, of sorts, for the reader. The sudden shift of focus from