Introduction
The following essay compares two editorial pieces reflecting opposing perspectives on school lunch rules. The opening piece, “Fed or Fed Up? Why We Support Easing School Lunch Rules”, supports the Trump administration’s move to ease some rules, according to a San Diego Union-Tribune article. The second piece, “Keep Up Fight Against Childhood Obesity,” also published in the Democrat and Chronicle, argues against lowering dietary requirements. A comparative analysis of two articles on school sweating will reveal the most appropriate strategy on this issue.
Aims and Purposes
Readers worried about the applicability of school lunch restrictions and food waste problems appear to be the target audience of the first piece, published in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The second essay appears to be aimed at readers concerned about childhood obesity and its impact on children’s long-term health. The first writer’s purpose is to prove that changing the rules of nutrition in schools will reduce waste. The author of the second article aims to raise awareness about the problem of obesity and suggests that schools should develop strategies to encourage children to eat healthier foods.
Bias
The author exhibits a bias in the first article, advocating for loosening regulations. For instance, the author refers to the regulations as “school lunch rules backfired,” highlighting the decline in student participation and the associated wasted food costs. “Keep Up the Fight against Childhood Obesity” expresses a bias against easing up on the nutritional criteria.
Organization and Sources Used
In both articles, the organizational pattern can be assessed as logical. Both authors try to establish ethos and persuade readers of their knowledge, reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness. In the first article, the author references studies estimating the decline in student participation and the cost of wasted food in school cafeterias. In the second article, the author cites statistics from the Centers for Disease Control regarding childhood obesity rates in the United States.
Persuasion and Reasoning
Referencing credible sources and providing evidence from reputable organizations contributes to the author’s persuasive power. It demonstrates a commitment to informed reasoning and strengthens the overall argument. Both articles could strengthen their arguments by addressing potential counterarguments, considering alternative strategies, and providing a more nuanced analysis. The authors’ logical reasoning is sound and error-free. The conclusions of the authors in both articles are rational, as the writers have built a competent and consistent narrative structure.
Toulmin Analysis
“Fed or Fed Up?”
Using Toulmin analysis, it can be seen that the first author claims that the decision to reduce school meals was justified. The data the writer provides in support of the arguments also aligns with logical thinking when presenting the argument. A warrant is defined in this editorial as a statement that strict rules resulted in food being thrown away.
As a backing, the author cited authorized persons who confirmed the excessive waste. A rebuttal is also present, as the author notes that some dangers were not considered when implementing the mitigations. In the qualifier, the author concludes that the nutrition program is incomplete based on the provided data.
“Keep Up Fight Against Childhood Obesity”
The second author claims that the food mitigation solution fell short of the goal of reducing obesity. In this regard, the author presents statistical data. A warrant is defined in the article as a statement about the incorrectness of the decision made.
As a backing, the author provided data from the statistical center. The author does not appear to be accurate in the rebuttal. In the qualifier, the author argues that schools must continue to focus on nutrition for children. The deductive reasoning in this article involves drawing a logical conclusion from the presented data.
Conclusion
These two editorial articles offer divergent perspectives on school lunch regulations. The first article argues for relaxing regulations to address food waste and student dissatisfaction, while the second article advocates for maintaining strict nutritional standards to combat childhood obesity. The authors’ biases, rhetorical appeals, use of evidence, logical fallacies, and reasoning strategies contribute to the overall effectiveness of their arguments.
Works Cited
“Fed Or Fed Up? Why We Support Easing School Lunch Rules.” San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board, 2017. Web.
“Keep Up Fight Against Childhood Obesity.” Democrat and Chronicle Editorial Board, 2017. Web.