What You Eat Is Your Business By Radley Balko

Ever since the creation of the golden arches, America has been suffering with one single problem, obesity. Obesity in America is getting worse, for nearly two-thirds of adult Americans are overweight. This obesity epidemic has become a normal since no one practices any type of active lifestyle. Of course this is a major problem and many wish it wasn 't in existence, but then we start to ask a major question. Who do we blame? There are two articles that discuss numerous sides of this question in their own unique way. “What You Eat is Your Business” by Radley Balko is better than “Don 't Blame the Eater” by David Zinczenko due to its position in argument, opposition, and it’s reoccurrence in evidence. There are several components that makes

The claim is the central idea or argument of a writer. It is the point that the writer is trying to get across to the reader. Even if the reader doesn 't agree with the claim or position of the writer with effective evidence and a strong claim, the writer could change the mind of the reader. In David Zinczenko’s “What You Eat is Your Business”, the claim is that, “Fast food should take the blame for the growing rate in obesity in the U.S. and it should be regulated buy the government.” (Zinczenko, 389). This argument is very effective. Now, the writer has answered the question as to who should take the blame for obesity. Zinczenko uses a personal narrative to help attract the reader emotionally towards his position. This is effective because many obese individuals would agree with the statement Zinczenko is making and this is what makes the argument strong. The writer clearly defines who is taking the blame for obesity and how it is their problem. This connects the title and the claim and clearly establishes the writers position. Zinczenko’s claim was overall strong. Unlike Zinczenko, Balko’s claim is less sympathetic and is straight to the point, in which for this type of topic I wouldn 't recommend. In contrast, Radley Balko argues that, “what we eat should remain a personal responsibility.” (390). When discussing a topic sensitive such as obesity, many reader could get offended by the words, “remain” and “personal responsibility”. It’s almost as

There is always going to be the opposing side to the writers ideas and presenting this opposition could either hurt or harm the article. This time, Balko’s team won the race. Balko’s presence of the opposition helped his argument more so than harmed it. The opposition is stated when he says, “President Bush marked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from campuses and vending machine.” (396) While reading that statistic I thought, “How Awful!”. By stating the opposition it makes the reader wonder, “Who should really take the blame?” This helps enforce the writers argument it doesn 't harm it all. It actually attracts the reader to the position of Balko’s argument due to strong and effective statistics. In contrast, Zinczenko’s article does the complete opposite when he says, “Kids taking on McDonald’s this week, suing the company for making them fat. Isn 't that like middle-aged men suing Porshe for making them get speeding tickets? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” (391) The writers opposition actually sounds more effective than his initial argument and that should never happen. The writer would 've been better off not stating the existence of the opposition at all. The opposition didn 't help enforce the side of the writer it only made it look less appealing. It leads the reader to