Fast Food And Personal Responsibility Ninos P. Malek Analysis
Critique
In the article “Fast food and personal responsibility” by Ninos P. Malek who earned a Phd in Economics and placed the second in the economics communicators, introduces us to Samuel Hirsch who filled lawsuits against the fast food companies, inculpating them for his poor health. In this article Malek argues on how each person is responsible on what they consume. Malik’s argument was worth reading although he does not provide any evidence on what he is endeavoring to prove. Furthermore he tries to persuade his readers by asking irrational questions that cannot be answered, his utilization of vague words drives the attention of the reader away from what is designated to be understood, he inclines to generalize the public and engenders a conclusion on what is transpiring today concerning the issue he is talking about.
In this article, Ninos P. Malek argues about how each person is responsible on what they consume concerning their diet and that it is not the companies that should be blamed. Malek mentioned Samuel Hirsch who filled the lawsuits against these companies, said that it is not the producers fault if …show more content…
Plus, he did not provide evidence on what he was trying to prove, leaving him to persuade his readers by asking illogical questions, attacking the opponent side with nothing to answer. Furthermore, Malek tended to generalize to verify one of his points. Moreover, he leaned toward the slippery slope fallacy when mentioning that there is a chance of the government banning candy companies or Starbucks. Malek should have provided more evidence, better use of word choice, and not asking illogical questions. And also not try to prove a point by using the word “everyone”. On the other hand, I found this article very engaging and Malek has convinced me enough that each person is responsible on what they
In the article “Fast food and personal responsibility” by Ninos P. Malek who earned a Phd in Economics and placed the second in the economics communicators, introduces us to Samuel Hirsch who filled lawsuits against the fast food companies, inculpating them for his poor health. In this article Malek argues on how each person is responsible on what they consume. Malik’s argument was worth reading although he does not provide any evidence on what he is endeavoring to prove. Furthermore he tries to persuade his readers by asking irrational questions that cannot be answered, his utilization of vague words drives the attention of the reader away from what is designated to be understood, he inclines to generalize the public and engenders a conclusion on what is transpiring today concerning the issue he is talking about.
In this article, Ninos P. Malek argues about how each person is responsible on what they consume concerning their diet and that it is not the companies that should be blamed. Malek mentioned Samuel Hirsch who filled the lawsuits against these companies, said that it is not the producers fault if …show more content…
Plus, he did not provide evidence on what he was trying to prove, leaving him to persuade his readers by asking illogical questions, attacking the opponent side with nothing to answer. Furthermore, Malek tended to generalize to verify one of his points. Moreover, he leaned toward the slippery slope fallacy when mentioning that there is a chance of the government banning candy companies or Starbucks. Malek should have provided more evidence, better use of word choice, and not asking illogical questions. And also not try to prove a point by using the word “everyone”. On the other hand, I found this article very engaging and Malek has convinced me enough that each person is responsible on what they