She begins to give statistics such as, "nationwide there is a 61% obesity rate, making the rate immensely more higher than ever. More than one-third of the United States population has been declared obsessed or overweight," which are great for people who understand numbers. Most individuals who are in the dark about obesity are not going to pay attention to statistics. As I read her article she backs up her thesis that obesity has "deathful consequences," but all I see supported are statistics- numbers similar to the ignored nutrition labels.
Jennifer is correct that obesity is overlooked and needs to be taken seriously, but she fails to show why. Not one sentence does she say something like, "Obesity is the leading cause to heart strokes, diabetes 2, and other health problems." So as her readers look at her argument, there isn't any pathos which is the main method of getting peoples attention. She could argue that children who are obese live harder lifestyles of balanced nutrition, depression, and sometimes lack of confidence due to bullying. Instead she again, throws out numbers that have no value.
I also disagree that obesity should become a national problem. Yes obesity is overwhelming and taking effect in most of our population, but it should not be burden to our government. America has already taken effect in controlling healthy lifestyles through required nutrition labels and physical education. The government can not sit at the dinner table and baby feed themselves; its just not realistic. Obesity has been controlled by policies and that's a great advancement in controlling American health. However, the rest lies solely in the individuals because how they eat on their own can not be controlled by anyone else.
If we do decide as she puts it, "We are talking about a great part of the population, families, friends, neighbors and even ourselves who have been exposed to obesity and overweight," to help reduce obesity, that's supportive, because a smaller concentrated community can have better effects than a government policy over many. However, the call for "rapid and effective responses" are not existent in Jennifer's article.
If we do decide as she puts it, "We are talking about a great part of the population, families, friends, neighbors and even ourselves who have been exposed to obesity and overweight," to help reduce obesity, that's supportive, because a smaller concentrated community can have better effects than a government policy over many. However, the call for "rapid and effective responses" are not existent in Jennifer's article.
She quickly ends her argument with, "Obesity reduction requires changes to not only improve the food but to also improve physical activity not just for certain individuals, because the overall health of the United States is depending on it! Not only does she quickly end her article, she also lightly fits in about physical activity. This closing statement makes the readers confused about what exactly the reading was for. They leave knowing what they already know; obesity is bad and we need to be more fit." I would say she failed to argue that obesity is bad, but here is how exactly we can go around and fix it. American's have heard about obesity, and until we stop repeating the obvious that obesity is unhealthy, no one is going to pay attention- just like the numbers we choose to be ignorant towards.
