Intoxitwitching: The Energy Drink Buzz Summary

The article, Intoxitwitching: The Energy Drink Buzz by Simon Benlow, states the possible negative effects of energy drinks on an individual’s concentration and focuses. The article explains the general perspective of consuming energy drinks in America and how deceiving energy drink products can be. The type of claim in the article is fact because it’s asserting the condition that sugar and other stimulants are being added as an energy boost in drinks, but consuming too much within a time period can lead to problematic side effects, which he supports throughout the article with experiences (cause and effect) and other sources leading to that conclusion. In addition, he also states the people would rather choose an energy drink rather than natural

or organic drinks because of how driven our society is by media and cultural habits to consume artificial products.
Benlow's argument is supported by ethos stating his profession stated “as a mild-mannered, 30-something college professor…”, which establishes that he could be a trustworthy author with a higher education on the subject.

He also establishes ethos with, “But I’m a caffeine fiend. I drink anywhere from 3 to 6 cups everyday.” His background supports that he has experiences with mild stimulants like coffee to support his claim. The author adds pathos appeal in last paragraph stating how the Romans fell as a society due to lead in their drinks as comparable to our obsession with sugary energy drinks. It represents pathos because it compares the tragedy of the Romans with our society with the possibility of having the same outcome which might invoke fear. Also, the eighth paragraph uses humorous remarks as pathos, such as, applying that if companies labelled their drinks by the effects rather than attractive names, then we’ll be presented with names such as “dare-you-to-focus” or “try-sitting-down-and-follow-one-idea.” Lastly, in the seventh paragraph he establishes logos with a fact that French officials made it illegal to sell energy drinks like Red Bull due to categorizing the drinks as medicine because of the high levels of certain ingredients. It convinces logically to the audience that energy drinks could be dangerous if governments have taken action preventing the selling of the

drink.
The author uses counterargument in paragraph five. He states that some people might argue that energy drinks are simply drinks to replenish yourself and their effects can be individually different than the author’s experience. He also shows in paragraph one with Red Bull’s benefits supposedly helping people increase their performance, it shows his acknowledgement of his opposing view, but adds his own claim to the quote with his own claim afterwards on the subject.
In conclusion, I think that the claim and additional claims explain his point of view on energy drinks very well, but doesn’t have enough facts to really give me an exact idea whether or not that his article is credible. His argument is logical because it’s been proven that sugar, in certain amounts, can be unhealthy and other stimulants like caffeine is considered a drug, but doesn’t really go indepth with it other than the effects itself. I wish that the author used more statistics like quantitative research in the article to show numbers or percentages to appeal more to logos. I would have been more interested if real world numbers were used like, amount of people who drink energy drinks, because it gives me a picture in my head of how many people I might relate to. I think it helps more people get general numbers in their head to really understand the effects of energy drinks.