Claire Churchwell

Rhetorical Analysis

It is no secret that the ever-growing problem of obesity in

America must be dealt with. In order to support a national health care

budget, congress officials have suggested a soda tax. With this tax, it

is expected that with a three-cent tax per twelve-ounce sugary

beverage, the tax would matriculate 24 billion dollars over the next

four years.1 Reducing obesity, diabetes and other illnesses caused by

poor diets, as well as setting aside a budget for health care seems

ideal. However, this “sin tax” could be taking logic and throwing it out

the window. Some believe it defies ethics to tax every naughty

behavior that the average American participates in. Muhtar Kent and

David Leonhardt offer a side to each argument. Muhtar Kent in “Coke

Didn’t Make America Fat”, utilizes logical facts, logos, and emotion,

pathos, to support is argument, claiming “Americans need more

exercise, not another tax” while Leonhardt relies on exaggerated

claims and pathos in “Sodas a Tempting Tax” to backbone is argument

that it’s the most logical way to achieve the nations goal2.

First3, Kent supports his argument using statistics, logic and

pathos. He presents statistical data provided by reputable sources

such as the National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention. Instead of putting4 all the blame on

sugary beverages like soda, he forces the reader to realize that the
bigger issue at stake is how Americans fail engage in necessary

physical activity. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has

found that 60% of Americans are not regularly active and 25% of

Americans are not active at all.” This statistic is legitimate proof that

there is clearly a bigger issue at hand: much needed exercise5. He

further elaborates on this point by stating that soda is not the primary

cause of weight gain considering 94.5% of caloric intake comes from

other foods and beverages that exclude soda all together6. He

continues to explain the obvious lack of ethics in this approach to a

health care budget, where is the line drawn to taxing naughty

American’s naughty behavior? He also states7 that the two States that

have already put a soda tax in effect have two of the highest rates of

obesity: Arkansas and West Virginia8. Proving that one of the main

issues they are trying to fix is falling short of being eradicated. He

moves into a Pathos approach by targeting the guilty conscious

present in Americans9. He states that we need to take responsibility for

our own diets, considering the many lawsuits over McDonalds fast food

weight gain as well as anyone who does not like to accept

responsibility for their own problem, this is a very concrete way to go10.

Anyone feeling badly about their weight will undoubtedly feel worse by

being reminded it is ultimately their fault: resulting in the urge to want

to change it. His second killer11 attempt at pathos “Policy makers

should stop spending their valuable time demonizing an industry that

directly employs more than 220,000 people in the U.S.” By reminding

the reader that hundreds of thousands of jobs that the soda industry is

responsible, you12 almost feel like a bad American for even second-

guessing their motives and positive contribution. Finally, Kent reminds

us that there are many healthier pop options that many Americans opt

for instead of the full-calorie alternative13.

Leonhardt relies on false logic as well as pathos to support his

argument. He compares soft drinks to “risky teen behaviors” such as

underage drinking, drug use and promiscuous sex14. In an attempt to

get people wildly involved, he continually reminds us that soft drinks

are to diabetes as tobacco is to lung cancer. Not only is his comparison

vague, it is not supported by logic or statistics. If he is referring to the

number of deaths per year, tobacco related deaths are at 5.4 million

per year, while obesity related deaths (including diabetes and other

preexisting health conditions) comes in at 112,000 per year. Smoking

is an accessory activity, while drinking fluids is not. He tries to make

the argument that alcohol is no less threatening than a soda, a claim

completely devoid of truth, considering the extreme addictiveness and

sobriety altering effects that alcohol holds. His argument is filled with

fallacies such as these15. He uses pathos in an attempt to elicit genuine

remorse for those without sufficient health care by stating “Most public

health scourges have a brutal way of holding down the associated

medical cost: they kill people”, this fallacy leads readers to believe that
Americans lives are literally in these officials’ hands, and they drop

them. In reality, public health care is much more complex an issue

than he portrays16. He attempts to make the warrant that thanks to the

poor economic situation America is facing, soda would be the single

best candidate for a “sin tax”, however backs this statement without

support, leaving it completely irrelevant.

While each article represents opposing sides to the same

argument, that is not what puts ether article at an advantage. Kent’s

faults lie almost entirely in his reputability. Considering he is the CEO

of Coca-Cola Company, most readers will undoubtedly let his bias

affect their interpretation of his article17. While he makes outstanding

points supported by unbiased health organizations, most readers will

not see through his implied opposing position to be able to appreciate

the validity in his statements. Leonhardt’s article utilizes Kairos like

Kent cannot. At this time, with the economy in the state that it is,

people are desperate and in need of health care, three-cents more for

a soda does not seem like a huge price to pay when, in return, many

Americans will start to receive public health care. He does play on

people’s emotions with the warrant of a need for health care18.

Ultimately, the better article is the stronger argument. While each

argument does touch upon weak and strong areas, Kent’s argument is

supported by concrete information while Leonhardt rests comfortably

on making false claims that lack validity and thus are fallacies19. His
second approach to target the reader’s soft side is too extreme to be

taken legitimately.

Finally, the articles’ context and audience are also factors in their

arguments. The audience is the general American public, however the

context of these articles plays an enormous role. The Wall Street

Journal, a more conservative newspaper has published Kent’s article

opposing an soda tax on the grounds its unethical and illogical.20 These

ideas coming from an article in a more “right-aimed” newspaper are

not surprising21. In contrast, the New York Times, an extremely22 liberal

publication has featured Leonhardt’s article supporting public health

care, as well as a tax that imposes on a citizens’ personal life and

decisions. These sorts of socialist ideals are relevant to a left-aimed

newspaper. The ethos of each writer is unique. While Muhtar Kent has

a built-in bias, considering his job could be jeopardized, he seems to

have developed a much more plausible argument while David

Leonhardt, a seasoned writer who has a career in the field, is unable to

develop a supportable23 argument. One may think that since the CEO

of Coca-Cola has contributed to an article discussing the soda tax

debate, that it would be filled with outrageous claims stemming from

complete disgust for the idea. When actually the opposite has

happened24. The strongest argument touches upon each rhetoric tool

to fully develop a good argument, however, the most effective rhetoric

tool is logos, the logical. Because when it comes down to what is right,
we cannot ignore the factual support of an argument.25

“Coke Didn’t Make America Fat”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455464

120581696.html

“Sodas a Tempting Tax Target”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/economy/20leonhardt.ht

ml?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255356399-Fuv0F6jD/ENeKJCrCn3rCw
1
Repetitive “tax”, could word differently
2
I like my intro. It is strong and to the point but it still isn’t just the facts, it works
into it.
3
I can’t decide if I like “First” as an opening word. I could have started right into
it.
4
“Putting” could be replaced by the word placing. “Putting” sounds amateur.
5
I like this statistic here and I like how I went on to explain it. We were instructed
to explain our quotations but I never did that in high school, I think it further
strengthens the point.
6
Good statistic.
7
“states that the two States”, probably should have chosen a word synonymous
with the first states.
8
Could rearrange this sentence so that the focus is directed toward the fault in
the system rather than the states that are part of that.
9
Sort of awkward, maybe could have said “Americans’ guilty consciences”
10
This could be put differently; it is not clear what I am getting at.
11
Unnecessary adjective
12
Could say “the reader” instead of “you”.
13
This could be a little too abrupt an ending.
14
I like that I included this absurdity.
15
I like this and all of the sentences leading up to it. They are to the point and
prove my point without rambling.
16
These sentences sound good to me.
17
Good point.
18
Another very good point
19
I really like this sentence, it is strong and well put.
20
This sort of sounds like I am saying the reason they published the article is
because it is unethical and illogical rather than the proposed tax
21
Could elaborate on why it is not surprising because of the relationship between
a tax like that and a more “conservative” outlook.
22
Exaggeration
23
Better word would be “valid”, or some sort of synonym for that
24
“the opposite” has not happened….just not that.
25
The ending could have been a little stronger even though it finished with all the
right points.