Article Analysis: A Grizzly Answer for Obesity by Kevin Corbit

912 Words2 Pages

Recently an article titled “A Grizzly Answer for Obesity” (Corbit, 2014) featured in the op-ed section of The New York Times. Through the course of the article its author Kevin Corbit - a senior biotech scientist - talks about the possibility of human gene mutation to solve the ever growing problem of obesity. The author’s objective is to reach a wide audience with no specialist knowledge in the field of genetic transitions. Kevin has extensively used elements such as language, structure, evidence and assumptions to shape the reader’s opinion. In the following essay I would specifically examine the usage of language and evidence employed by the author. Despite the presence of numerous examples of fallacious comparisons the author has perfectly used the language to his advantage and is successful in reaching a convincing conclusion.

As good writers do, Kevin has exquisitely used language to favor his side. His wide arsenal includes weapons such as non-sequiturs, vague comparisons, jargons, emotive terms, connoted meanings and multiple others. The author knew that his target audience would not be specialized in bioengineering and its application in the medicine industry. He exploited this vulnerability of theirs by using scientific terms like “formulaic”, “clinically”, “suicidal ideation” and “cardiac hypertrophy” throughout the essay. This usage of jargon (Carroll, 2012) accompanied by him acting as an expert persuades the reader to believe in his writing.

As we further read through the essay we can see a fine example of a non sequitur (Cottrell, 2011) in the opening statement of the eleventh paragraph. Using “veritable cornucopia” doesn’t follow logically and forms a disconnection. Just after explaining an example of biotic chan...

... middle of paper ...

...on. This is possible because Kevin Corbit is successfully able to use language as a tool to transmit his message without being challenged. Throughout the article each individual element - language, structure, evidence and assumptions - acts as a part of a web, and they work simultaneously to trap the reader within its fabric, fulfilling the purpose of the author.

Works Cited

• Mill, J. S. (2000). System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
• Schnieder. (2006). Logic for Lawyers. Munich: Vahlen.
• Corbit, K. (2014, 02 11). The New York Times. Retrieved 02 18, 2014, from The New York Times Webpage: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/opinion/a-grizzly-answer-for-obesity.html
• Carroll, R. T. (2012). Becoming a Critical Thinker. San Fransisco: Pearson.
• Cottrell, D. S. (2011). Critical Thinking Skills. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Open Document