Project 2 Argument Analysis & Evaluation Essay | Homework Helper

I’m studying for my English class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Project 2 Argument Analysis & Evaluation

Curious Paradox

For Module 2, you engaged with two arguments (Beyond Food w/the Hepworth review, Ludwig) that relate to the two arguments from Module 1 (Kirshenbaum & Buhler, and Taubes) on diet, exercise and health and crossing various genres. The issues are curious since an individualistic self-sufficient culture like America’s should not have epidemics like obesity. All of these arguments are consistent with our common underlying assumptions of American cultural individualism, which implies personal responsibility. However, Beyond Food makes a bold claim that the new methods for health embrace collective well-being and individualized health. How reasonable is it to mesh the individual with the collective in our society?

Kirshenbaum and Buhler, in “Americans are Confused. . .,” insist that Americans are “disengaged or misinformed about food,” setting a problematic course for individual health as well as “our collective future” (2). They call for more scientific expertise to guide the public health discussion in order to combat misinformation and food advocacy groups. Taubes also reacts to dietary misinformation in “What Really Makes Us Fat,” by celebrating how Dr. David Ludwig’s study could shift the obesity conversation towards critiquing the “conventional wisdom” of “a calorie is a calorie.” In “Lifespan weighed down by diet,” Dr. David Ludwig also derides the official “calorie is a calorie” mantra for “exonerating the food industry” (6) from the “looming social and economic catastrophe” (2) to our collective well-being.

Which argument (Beyond Food, Kirshenbaum & Buhler, Taubes, or Ludwig) do you evaluate as being most effective for persuading the intended audience?

Prompt: Construct an essay in which you analyze (audience, development, rhetorical strategies/devices, appeals, purpose, underlying assumption) and evaluate one claim in Beyond Food. Choose from the claims by the biohackers, raw food advocates, paleo/raw advocates, forager, rancher, or composter). Select a section that (in)directly relates to the underlying assumption about individualized health and collective well-being. Compare or contrast this assumption to the way it relates to one of the arguments by Kishenbaum & Buhler, Taubes, or Ludwig.
For example:

***Kirshenbaum and Buhler blame inadequate food knowledge on the voluminous noise in the marketplace, risking individual, and by extension, public health. Their solution is to elevate the contribution of science to the public health conversation, which, so far, has favored GMO solutions for solving global starvation. An assumption from the 1960’s [science based] “conventional wisdom” encouraging “low-fat, carbohydrate rich diets” (8) is criticized by Taubes. By Taubes’ logic, anyone following this diet has been subjected to the “mainstream disinformation” rallied against in Beyond Health, but it was originally intended to improve “collective well-being.” Ludwig laments “the confluence of uncertain science and special interests” (6) for a food system that wrongly just blames obesity on the individual, who has likely been adhering to public health notions like “a calorie is a calorie.” Ludwig calls for policy that will prioritize collective health.***

Evaluate which of your two arguments (Beyond Food section or one by K&B/T/L) is more effective at persuading the intended audience and why.

Where to start brainstorming: Decide what claim from Beyond Food you want to analyze and evaluate. from beyond food, choose biohacking. (video for Beyond Food is the last link at the bottom) Then choose an argument by K&B/T/L (links are on the bottom for the two articles) to evaluate in comparison to Beyond Food. Analyze the rhetorical strategies for your Beyond Food claim, and add a focus to the part you will use to discuss an underlying assumption regarding individualized health and collective well-being.

Your main claim may be as simple as:

“In this essay, I will analyze and evaluate one claim in Beyond Food, and I will briefly analyze then evaluate an argument by K&B/T/L, whose underlying assumption aligns/conflicts with that in Beyond Food.”

Or you can get fancy with something like:

On the other hand, the underlying assumption in Beyond Food that health is unique to individuals conflicts with the view of Kirshebaum and Buhler that science-based knowledge needs to influence the public discussion about food.

Criteria for Evaluation: Successful papers will accomplish the following tasks in 6 well-developed, non-repetitious paragraphs:

• Describe for a reader unfamiliar with these texts the common food related health issues. Create a smooth transition to your introduction of Beyond Food.
• Provide an accurate and complete introduction to Beyond Food and briefly introduce your one other argument by K&B/T/L.
• End your introduction with a clear main claim that sets up your analysis. See the examples above. {^{1st paragraph}}
• In one paragraph, introduce Beyond Food’s argument with a modified rhetorical précis and audience analysis to include one piece of evidence from the film to show your own reader who the intended audience must be. {^{2d paragraph}}
• Analyze one claim in Beyond Food, addressing the following tasks in an appropriate order (you need not confine each to a single sentence):
• clearly identify one dependent claim;
• hint at some of the major support (development) for this claim;
• identify and label the evidence and reasons used to support this claim (this evidence should connect in some way to your underlying assumption);
• name one appeal being used with this development (ethos/logos/pathos) and explain how it works on the audience and how it adds power to the claim;
• comment on the purpose – what is hoped that the viewer will go out and do?
• briefly evaluate how effectively this claim will persuade the viewer. {^{3d paragraph}}
• In one paragraph, sum up from your analysis, how the argument in Beyond Food is (in)consistent with an underlying assumption in our individualistic culture. {^{4th paragraph}}
• Highlight this assumption from Beyond Food to connect to the assumption in the K&B/T/L argument. Introduce this argument using a modified rhetorical précis, briefly analyze part of it, and evaluate how effectively it persuades its intended reader. {^{5th paragraph}}
• Conclude by referring back to what you focused on for the Beyond Food argument and combine your conclusion from your analysis of the K&B/T/L. Indicate for your reader what might be significant to him or her regarding food and lifestyle decisions. Highlight what new awareness or knowledge you want your own reader to gain after reading your essay. For example, do we leave health up to the individual and “free market” or do we shore it up through public health institutions? {^{6th paragraph}}
• Support your argument using examples of strategies and appeals (direct and indirect quotes) from the text. Always provide direct follow-up discussion and analysis of every quote to establish its relevance to your larger point.
• Maintain paragraph unity in your paragraphs. Each paragraph should focus on one main analytical idea that is illustrated with short integrated quotes from the text. Each quote and example should be followed or preceded by your analysis and commentary.
• Use active and rhetorically accurate verbs (see list in the rhetorical précis document in Module 2 Readings).
• Support your analysis with direct evidence from the texts. When you make a claim, back it up with textual evidence and supporting examples. Avoid unsubstantiated claims, vague references to the texts and generic sentences. Cite quotations and paraphrased material as follows using the paragraph number where possible in parentheses immediately after the quote (##).
• Be thoroughly edited on the final draft so that sentences are readable & appropriate for academic papers (no unnecessary wordiness and few simple sentences).
• Write your own argument for an audience of SDSU kinesiology graduate students.

Learning Outcomes:

• Evaluate complex print, digital, and multimodal texts that engage significant academic, professional, or civic issues;
• Analyze and apply rhetorical principles appropriate to different purposes and goals, within specific disciplinary, professional and civic communities;
• Research and contribute to specific areas of inquiry by evaluating, synthesizing, and integrating strategies and sources appropriate to genre;
• Adapt and employ conventions to communicate with diverse audiences who are members of or affected by a specific area or discipline;
• Compose texts reflecting the above descriptors, working individually and collaboratively, through processes of drafting, critiquing, reflecting and editing.

http://theconversation.com/americans-are-confused-about-food-and-unsure-where-to-turn-for-answers-survey-shows-82124

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html

https://sdsu.kanopy.com/video/beyond-food