Food which Makes Children Unhealthy - Lab Report Example

EVALUATION OF AN EXTENDED ARGUMENT TEXT A Advertising Is Not Bad for Children’s Health 1 Research reports are unreliable as they are offered by ban advocates. 1.1.2 It is not true that children are becoming unhealthy. 1.1.2.1 Survey shows an increase of only 20% in rise of unhealthy kids. 1.1: There is no clear evidence that children are becoming unhealthy. 1.2.1 Ryan eats fast food products and he is healthy. 1.2.2 Fast food joints sponsor sports activities. 1.2 Fast foods make children healthier. 1 They do not affect children’ health in a negative way. 2.1 Ads do not force people to buy their products. 2.2 No precedents of banning ads in large fast food consuming areas. 2.2.1 No ban in US, where 30% of public schools have franchise. 2.3 The AANA reports that ads do not make children eat more. 2.4 A ban is a disservice to the companies and the people they serve. 2.4.1 Ads is the only way companies can share info. 2.4.2 Children need to have access on food info, food choices. 2.5 Children to whom ads are shown do not make shopping decisions. 2 Even if children are becoming unhealthy, a ban on ads is not the solution. C Fast food advertisements should not be banned on children’s shows Summary. There is no need to ban fast food advertisements on children’s shows. First, there is no clear evidence that children are becoming unhealthy and second, assuming that they are, it is still not a reason to prevent fast food providers from airing their advertisements on children’s shows. There is no evidence that children are becoming unhealthy. Reports to that effect are unreliable because they are being offered by those who advocate the ban themselves. Also, a survey of 5500 children in the New South Wales showed that there was only a rise of 20% of unhealthy children since 1997, which therefore leaves a vast number of children unhealthy. Fast foods actually make children healthy. First, there’s the boy Ryan who is nine years old who rides a bicycle to school and is active is sports and who eats pizzas and burgers. Second, these fast foods, like McDonald’s, sponsor sports festivals which encourage children to engage in healthy activities. And assuming that children are growing unhealthy, this does not justify the banning of advertisements. First, the advertisements do not force people to buy their products. Second, the Australian Association of National Advertisers stated that advertisements do not make children eat more than their usual intake. Third, the advertisements are shown in television programs watched by primary school children and these children do make the decisions in their families what food to buy. Fourth, there are no other large fast food-consuming countries undertaking a ban of these advertisements. A case in point is the United States where 30% of their public schools are franchisees of these fast foods. Fifth, a ban is a disservice to the fast food providers and the people they serve. Advertisements are the only way that these providers can disseminate to people information about their products. The children to whom these advertisements are shown have the right to information as well as the right to make their own food choices. Evaluation. The 13-paragraph article Advertising Is Not Bad for Children’s Health text is a feebly constituted text made so because of its liberal use of a string of fallacies to support its thesis or conclusion. The main thesis of the article is the position that there is no reason to ban fast food advertisements on children’s shows. Two major premises support it: they do not affect children’s health (1) and assuming that they do, a ban is not the appropriate solution (2). The first premise (1) which is ‘advertisements do not affect children’s health” is largely a weak premise because the two arguments that support it are unacceptable as they are products of fallacious reasoning: one, research reports are unreliable because they are supplied by those advocating for the ban (1.1.1), and, two, comparatively speaking, it is not true that children are becoming unhealthy (1.1.2). The fact that the reports detailing the ill effects of fast foods on children’s health were endorsed by the advocates of the ban themselves, do not make such reports unfounded. This is a ploy which attacks not the validity or the factuality of the reports themselves but their endorsers. What if these reports were true notwithstanding their endorsers? 1.1.1 therefore is a fallacy known as ad hominem (fallacy of relevance) because it attacks the persons and not the validity of the reports themselves. The argument that children are not becoming healthy (1.1.2) is supported by citing a survey conducted in the New South Wales involving 5000 schoolchildren (1.1.2.1). It is likewise unacceptable because although it cited an actual survey, the appreciation of the survey and the interpretation of its results were erroneous. The argument thus stated that in 1997 there were only 5% students (from among those surveyed) who were unhealthy and the present survey only 25% showing a growth of only 20%, leaving the vast majority of the children healthy (1.1.2.1). This is clearly an improper use of data considering that 20% is quite a significant rise and the subjects are children. If such rate continues its present trend, the implication is that in ten years time there will be almost 50% children who will be unhealthy. The argument is a form of composition fallacy because it depends on erroneous characteristics of the data gathered in the survey. It is also a false dichotomy because it pits the 25% unhealthy children to the 75% healthy children and assumes that because 75% of the children are healthy therefore children, in general are healthy setting aside the fact of the considerable rise in unhealthy children. The other argument for the premise that fast food advertisements do not affect children’s health is that fast foods, on the contrary, make children healthier (1.1.2). The supporting arguments for this statement is the specific example of Ryan (1.1.2.1) and the fact that McDonald’s and other fast food providers like it are often sponsors of sports fests (1.1.2.1). On the first statement (1.1.2.1), the article attributed, in effect, Ryan’s statement that some fast food products are his favorites to his good health. This is a fallacy through and through. Ryan is not only nine years old and a very active kid but the article did not state when Ryan started to eat fast food products and how often he eats them in a week (fallacy of clarity). The facts stated simply do not adequately support the conclusion. It is therefore a fallacy for being half-truth (some details are omitted), a non sequitur (the fact that Ryan is a healthy boy do not necessarily stem from the fact that his favorites are pizza and burgers) and a statistics of small numbers (assuming that Ryan is healthy despite eating junk food) is inadequate to show that this is the general or overall fact. On the other hand, the other argument for 1 – that McDonald’s and company have, on the contrary, good health effects on children because they periodically sponsor sports festival (1.1.2.1) is an argument that is beside the point. This is sidetracking the issue that fast food products are unhealthy to children. Sponsoring sports activities cannot substitute for healthy eating. Thus, this argument is also a fallacy for being irrelevant and diverting the issue. At to the other main premise that assuming that children are unhealthy, a ban on these advertisements is not the appropriate solution (2), the same is also unsound for being supported by a bushel of fallacies. The first argument, for instance, of the aforesaid statement avers that advertisements do not compel people to buy their products (2.1). On the surface, this is true; however, there are psychological studies that claim that constant exposure to the same advertisements can have a subliminal effect especially on tender minds. This is a statement that is begging the question because it assumes that advertisements do not have a persuasive, psychological kind of effect. Moreover, it bunches children together with others putting them on the same level of mental maturity with the rest of the population and therefore the statement is a fallacy of vacuity. Likewise, the statement that AANA has declared that advertisements do not have the effect of making children eat more than their usual intake (2.3) is a fallacy because it is a half truth and a non sequitur. The statement that children do not eat more than their usual fare does not equate to their eating the right kind of food. They may not eat more but if the quality of the food they eat is not good but which they habitually eat anyway because of the persuasive effects of advertisements, then this argument is a weak support for the statement that banning advertisements is not the correct solution. Another argument is exposing children to the advertisements in question does not matter because they do not do the shopping or the buying anyway (2.5). This is a fallacy for being irrelevant. Children may not do the shopping at home but they can very well buy their own food from any of the fast food joints because it won’t take them that much money to do so. The lack of precedents in other countries citing the United States as an example is a fallacy for its bandwagon effect (2.2 and 2.2.1). The fact that the US has no ban does not make advertisements good for kids and their banning improper or proper in Australia. This assumes that the US is correct in not banning advertisements. Lastly, the statement that banning is a disservice to the companies and to the community they serve (2.4) is an argumentum ad populum for appealing to sentimental weakness of the people rather than dealing squarely with the issue at hand. Its supporting statement 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 are both unsound for being composition fallacies. Read More