Coffee Rhetorical Analysis
The healthiness of coffee has been a topic of debate for many years. Being one of the most common drinks in the world, people have argued all sorts of positions in regards to its benefits or detriments to their health. Kris Gunnars’ article, “13 Health Benefits of Coffee, Based on Science” argues that coffee is indeed healthy, and provides thirteen reasons why. Jim Dillan’s article, “7 Negative Effects of Coffee & The Healthy Drink You Should Replace it With,” argues the opposite, claiming that coffee is overall harmful to the human body. Although coffee has both positive and negative side effects, Gunners’ article is much more informative, due to its abundance of citations, its large number of well-developed points, and the fact that the article remains consistent with its title. Gunnars’ article is very well supported. A citation is provided for every single claim he makes. The article itself has a stunning total of fifty-seven citations, each to a reliable source such as a
…show more content…
The title claims that it will provide the reader with “The Healthy Drink You Should Replace [coffee] With.” At no point in the article is this done. Instead, Dillan provides a link to another article, once again to the same website, titled “3 Steps to Substitute Coffee and Effective Caffeine Withdrawal.” This makes it apparent that the author does not have an interest in truly providing the reader with the information contained in his article, and instead is more concerned with the hits to the website that he works for in an effort to make more ad revenue. An informative article should contain at the very least what is in the title. Instead, Dillan’s article skips an entire half of its own title, unlike Gunnars’ which provides exactly what it claims – health benefits of coffee based on science. This is another reason why Gunnars’ article is significantly more informative than
The title claims that it will provide the reader with “The Healthy Drink You Should Replace [coffee] With.” At no point in the article is this done. Instead, Dillan provides a link to another article, once again to the same website, titled “3 Steps to Substitute Coffee and Effective Caffeine Withdrawal.” This makes it apparent that the author does not have an interest in truly providing the reader with the information contained in his article, and instead is more concerned with the hits to the website that he works for in an effort to make more ad revenue. An informative article should contain at the very least what is in the title. Instead, Dillan’s article skips an entire half of its own title, unlike Gunnars’ which provides exactly what it claims – health benefits of coffee based on science. This is another reason why Gunnars’ article is significantly more informative than