TOW #28: Food Inc. by Robert Kenner

Just the title alone is enough to show the problem. In Food Inc., Robert Kenner, who has produced films such as An Inconvenient Truth and America’s Endangered Species: Don’t Say Good-bye, calls on us consumers to look behind the walls of the chicken coop, the slaughterhouse, and the courtroom as he attempts to expose the atrocities and injustices that occur on a daily basis in the food industry. In this eye-opening documentary, Kenner gives his audience insight into the lives of the victims, from the antibiotic-juiced chickens whose legs can’t support their own weight, to the innocent farmers who have been crushed by corporate giants in unfair legal battles. The film culminates with a segment detailing the various ways an average citizen can support the cause, which becomes very meaningful as a result of Kenner’s effective use of rhetorical strategies to create concern over the issue.

             Kenner capitalizes on an appeal to pathos throughout this movie, drawing from the tough realities faced by both those in and outside the food industry. He gathers stories from a diverse array of people, including a lower class family struggling to afford anything but fast food due to the expensive medical bills brought on by diabetes, the mother of a deceased child that consumed tainted meat who has since become an advocate of increased regulation of food producers, and a farmer whose resistance to a large company caused the loss of his business. Kenner also presents the brighter side of the food industry, interviewing an independent farmer who refuses to feed his cattle corn or use growth hormones on his chickens, and the CEO of Stonybrook Farms, who sees great potential in the organic sector of the business. While this may seem like a lopsided and incomplete picture of the situation, Kenner substantiates his and the “victims’” claims by making it clear that each of the giant companies like Smithfield, Perdue, and Tyson declined to comment or interview at all. This format of presenting a heart-wrenching story and accompanying acknowledgement of the opposing side’s argument is mimicked throughout the film, as Kenner explored the different realms of the massive machine. At the end, the viewer gains a clear understanding of the situation in its entirety, and is therefore likely to listen to the request for action presented at the end.

TOW #27: TOW Reflection

When I looked back at my TOWs from marking periods 1, 2 and 3, I really don’t see many changes. I feel as though throughout the course of the year, the structure of my TOWs have been pretty consistent. Of the few changes I did notice, my analysis of rhetorical devices was notable, since in the beginning of the year, I didn't really have a grasp on how to analyze a device in the context of the writing piece; I didn’t show how the device was connected to the author’s purpose. Now, however, I think I have a better understanding of why it is worth analyzing rhetorical devices at all—to gain insight on the author’s purpose in writing an article. That said, I don’t think I have mastered it, nor any other part of the TOWs. I definitely know what I could improve upon though: identifying the audience. It’s not very difficult; in fact, it’s not difficult at all, to figure out whom the author is writing to, such as New York Times subscribers, or doctors who reading a medical journal. Correctly identifying how their occupations or values would influence their interpretation of a certain article is the hard part. This may be in part due to the fact that while an audience may be primarily made up of one class of people, their personalities and thought processes are so diverse that they are not likely to have the same reaction to the same article. This issue aside though, I would say that overall, TOWs have helped me somewhat in writing, but probably most in expanding my horizons. Since I feel that they have not really changed over the year, I don't think they really benefited my writing as much as they made me more well rounded and aware of subjects unbeknownst to be before this year, and this has helped me in coming up with evidence for my Argument essays.

TOW #26: Why People Don't Donate Their Organs by Sally Satel

Modern technology has enabled us to fix many of the ailments that had previously been a death sentence. Organ transplants are a prime example of the strides the field of medicine has made, but there is still a large number of people in need of an organ. In an article entitled “Why People Don’t Donate Their Kidneys”, Sally Satel explains the growing problem with finding donors, and offers a solution to solve it. She opens by explaining how requiring a purely altruistic donation is not enough to meet the growing demand of kidneys, citing statistics and referencing federal law. Because this was published in the New York Times, Satel’s audience is probably made up of educated adults, who would expect specific evidence to support a claim. She then proceeds to lay out her solution, which involves giving third parties the chance to provide benefits for donors. During the argument portion of this article, Satel addresses a counterargument that the law prohibits this, saying that lawmakers are not sure of exactly what the law states. She substantiates this claim by quoting The 2007 Department of Justice memo, which states that the bill in question “does not suggest any Member of Congress understood the bill as addressing non-monetary or otherwise non-commercial transfers.” Finally, Satel supports her argument by referencing Al- Gore’s call for a similar change. Through her well-structured article that provided both an informative overview of the subject and a coherent plan to fix it, Satel was able to effectively argue for a change in organ donation. Because of the New York Times’ national reputation, there is a good chance that Satel will reach many people, some of whom are lawmakers capable of sparking an interest in addressing this issue in Congress. As for the rest of her audience, her sound argument will hopefully persuade some to take action, either through contacting their state representatives, or donating an organ themselves.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/why-people-dont-donate-their-kidneys.html