Dont Feel Guilty About Eating Animals By Jeffery Kluger's Article Analysis
“Don’t Feel Guilty About Eating Animals” by Jeffery Kluger (Time, 2014), a senior writer, and “Bellying up to Environmentalism: Vegetarianism is a major step for environmental change” by James E. McWilliams (The Washington Post, 2009), a professor at Texas State University. Kluger’s article is about how mankind should not feel guilty about eating meat and puts forth several reasons to justify it. He adopts a casual and provocative writing style, using forceful words to attract readers. Conversely, McWilliams’s article proposes that the consumption of meat is detrimental to our environment and discusses an effective way to curb the degradation. He uses a persuasive writing style and relies on research, examples, and data to convince the reader of his argument. Both articles target the well-educated audience, addressing the consequences of eating meat and seeking to convince readers of their stand. The articles are similar
…show more content…
Kluger use an analogy, comparing cows to human beings, (Para 1, 2, 3) in hopes of keeping his arguments relatable. However, his analogy fails to distinguish human beings and other animals. This extreme view distances some readers from his stand. He cites studies by research psychologist, Steve Loughnan, to substantiate his argument. However, by relying on a one source, he gives the impression that he is “cherry-picking” evidence, reducing the article’s credibility. On the other hand, McWilliams uses a wider variety of evidences, ranging from personal experiences (Para 1, 2, 3, 4), examples (Para 6, 10), statistical evidence (Para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) and analogies (Para 13). This makes his argument more reasonable. However, his failure to cite sources for the statistical evidence slightly diminishes the reliability and objectivity of his article. Despite this, McWilliams use of a more varied evidence renders his article more
Kluger use an analogy, comparing cows to human beings, (Para 1, 2, 3) in hopes of keeping his arguments relatable. However, his analogy fails to distinguish human beings and other animals. This extreme view distances some readers from his stand. He cites studies by research psychologist, Steve Loughnan, to substantiate his argument. However, by relying on a one source, he gives the impression that he is “cherry-picking” evidence, reducing the article’s credibility. On the other hand, McWilliams uses a wider variety of evidences, ranging from personal experiences (Para 1, 2, 3, 4), examples (Para 6, 10), statistical evidence (Para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) and analogies (Para 13). This makes his argument more reasonable. However, his failure to cite sources for the statistical evidence slightly diminishes the reliability and objectivity of his article. Despite this, McWilliams use of a more varied evidence renders his article more