Strong and Weak Evidence

My essay is about why imposing a high tax on unhealthy foods in America will not help combat obesity, and is ultimately a bad idea.

Evidence Chart

Pathos

1. Sometimes I don't have time to make a proper meal at home, especially on busy days when I go to school and work. Buying a quick snack goes a long way during those moments.
2. People are responsible for their own weight, not the products.
3. It isn't fair for working, healthy Americans to pay more because of other people abusing the industry.

Logos 

1. The government already taxes income, alcohol, sales, and just about everything else in life.
2. Will effect poor people more than anybody else.
3. If junk food becomes expensive while healthy foods are just as expensive as they've always been, then what justice does that bring?
4. People still smoke, drink, and gamble even though there are taxes on all three.

Ethos

1. The tax provides income for the government.
2. It serves as a deterrent.
3. Money could fund programs regarding childhood obesity.
4. Junk food is not only too convenient, but also cheap; making it more expensive will encourage other foods to be eaten.
5. Where do you draw the line between healthy and unhealthy foods?

My most compelling evidence is my claim that the poorest people in our country would end up paying more in the long run because a high percentage of their income goes to food. Also, their main source of food comes from convenient stores and fast food chains, which sell all kinds of unhealthy products. This is strong evidence because it can be related to other legislative tax increases. Well-off or rich people don't suffer from a few percentage increases because they have the money. People who live from pay check to pay check don't have many options. They may sacrifice their health for a job or, in this case, eating food period. I will probably use this piece of evidence as my last example.

My weakest evidence is my claim that the government already taxes other vices, including alcohol, cigarettes, gas, and gambling. A person arguing against this idea could easily say, "Well, one more tax won't hurt," or that the tax will help those who eat too much. To strengthen this evidence, I will admit to by saying they are right to a certain extent; no one likes to pay more money. I will bring up cigarettes, for example, have been taxed more, yet people continue to smoke anyway. People would be willing to pay extra to get what they want.

Analyzing and Writing Arguments

I wrote my argument analysis paper based on the Get Smart About College article. These are the three points I have learned from analyzing the authors' argument:

1. Saum and McPherson had well written body paragraphs to support their main idea. In those paragraphs, they stated a few objections a skeptical reader might have about college and replied with some plausible explanations. Although I do not believe their explanations are entirely true, this method strengthen the overall quality of the article by making the authors seem less bias than they already are.
2. The authors wrote their article in an appropriate tone, which is friendly and understanding. The people mostly likely reading the article are concerned parents and confused students. It would have been counterproductive if the authors wrote in a tactless tone. Therefore, I now know how I present my words can be just as important as what I present.
3. The last thing I noticed is the evidence provided. The authors mention percentages and statistics throughout the paper. This weaken their argument because the audience does not know where they are receiving the information from. If I want my paper to be a strong one, I will make sure to provide substantial evidence to support my claim.

Peer Review

The peer review is very effective. Personally, I like meeting with one of my classmates instead of two or more people because we can really focus on each others' writing. Although the provided questions on the peer review sheet are not difficult to read, they can be difficult to understand while reviewing a rather complicated paper. The fault of this issue does not weigh heavily on the questions as much as it does on the students' understanding of the assignment. So I guess the only way it can be improved is to ask more questions for a better comprehension. This also ties into the weakness of a peer reviewer. If I do not fully understand the assignment, then I could potentially send another peer down the wrong path. Another one of my weaknesses is the drafting stages and deadlines. Most times, I can't type a full paper for a draft. I space out the weeks before the final deadline to write sections of the paper, and then have someone look over everything. The most I would have prepared for a draft peer review are the body paragraphs and central idea. Everything else that might be included (the conclusion, intro, and thesis) feel "rushed." Therefore, I don't bring my best ideas to the table. My strength is my grammar skills. I'm not perfect, but I always have a gut feeling (and use of past grammar classes) when a sentence uses improper grammar. 

My ideal peer review process is in a semi-casual setting with no judgements toward a paper. I find it helpful to do peer review after I have understood the concepts and have written an entire draft. One on one works best for me since larger groups tend to get off topic. The amount of time is okay. I like the fact that we are able to have more than one day to review. During the first article argument review session, I made mini deadlines to my peer reviewer. For example, I mentioned one of my weakness is not having a complete draft. I told my peer I would have a thesis or a personal analysis ready for him by the next meeting. He gave me tips and ideas on how I could construct the missing parts of my paper.