Food For The Soul Rhetorical Analysis

507 Words2 Pages

In the article “Food for the Soul”, the author Nikolas Kristof endeavors to persuade his audience to believe and align with his opinion – industrialized farming is soulless and more emphasis should be placed on family farming. The article was written in the opinion section of the New York Times and contains exactly what was intended – the author’s opinion. However, Kristof was effective at achieving his purpose as his article was peppered with all three appeals. Of those appeals, however, ethos is used in an interesting way, entangling Kristof’s audience into agreeing with his opinion.
To start off the article, the first sentence written is concerning the farm on which Kristof grew up, which shows the audience immediately of the author’s firsthand knowledge of the topic being discussed. As such, Kristof is painted in a credible and trustworthy light. If he presented himself not in this way, people would be likely to doubt his opinion instead of perceiving it as fact from experience. This is followed by a thesis illustrating his awareness of a range of advanced and ethically difficult topics including antibiotic overuse and improper waste handling. Kristof appears knowledgeable and professional in the structure of his upcoming argument as he focuses on how food lacks soul. This …show more content…

Kristof also uses the story of the chick, raised a goose, yet re-identified as a hen, as a metaphor illustrating that no matter how much society or big industry tries to change the small family farm to be what it is not, the family farm will remain a strong and triumphant force that “offer[s] decent and varied lives for the animals themselves” (Kristof). Through these personas and metaphors, Kristof shows himself as a person that is sympathetic to the less fortunate, yet unwavering in his resolve of being

Open Document