ipl-logo

Rhetorical Analysis Of Fast And Good For You

765 Words4 Pages

The main purpose throughout the article is to specifically persuade the intended audience. Particularly the author wants meatatarian fast-food restaurants to incorporate relatively inexpensive ingredients that can grow into productivity. Though the author mentioned various quotes that perhaps strengthened his argument to an extent, his inability to implicate different forms of persuasion significantly weakened the message that he was trying to deliver. Mark Bittman’s article “Fast, good and good for you” is ineffective in using rhetoric because of his overuse of logos rather than using other appeals to persuade. First, the author structuring the article to give a lot of calorie numbers and details of different restaurants minimizes his argument …show more content…

The article specifies “much of what I ate at Veggie Grill was fried and dense, and even when I didn’t overeat, I felt as heavy afterward as I do after eating at a Junk Food chain” (Bittman, pg 30). Relative to what the speaker is trying to communicate to the audience throughout the article, there appears instances in which the author introduces personal experiences that in a particular way may not establish a common ground with the reader. This is important to notice from the start because the experiences that are mentioned create a sense of unproductivity for the reason that the reader cannot always characterize themselves to what one has experienced. The article also mentions “it’s fairly easy to eat vegan there, but those burritos can pack on the calories” (Bittman, pg 29). Although the numbers being mentioned, again, can assist the message to have more meaning alongside it, there is also a chance that the calorie numbers can have a disadvantage of the readers eating the foods that they enjoy. In other words, there will always exist a certain amount of the population wanting to know all about the calories, but there also appears to be the ones that can feel affected simply by the fact that not having or standing on a common ground can lead for less of a possibility to be swayed into the author’s aim, specifically his

Open Document