For next Tuesday, please read...
- Chapter 10: Writing to Persuade (pgs. 404 - 422)
Up for Discussion:
1. Describe, in detail, an image (or "shot") from the first half of "Food, Inc." that you found striking. Why was it effective?
2. Using the information gleaned from Chapter 10, write a paragraph in which you critique the persuasive power of the film "Food, Inc." What elements of persuasive writing, according to Chapter 10, does the film utilize? Which could it have used to make its argument stronger--and how?
1. When the farmer was talking about the cows and feeding them on corn instead of grass, which they are normally supposed to eat, the ecol i bacteria that formed in the stomach of the cow was shocking and striking,and disgusting all at the same time. It was effective because it made me think twice about ever eating beef again because of the process that they go through just because "products" like corn are cheaper than growing grass. It was also striking that corn is in so many of the food products that we consume, I was surprised, and didn't believe it was possible; corn in some many different forms. It is riveting, yet troublesome.
ReplyDelete2. In food Inc, they utilized the implicit argument, because they are revealing the substance and the material making it effective by providing information without pushing the persuasive power to make you change your mind from eating meat, but to make you understand and see for yourself. "Why do the industry make it cheaper to buy from the dollar menu than to buy fruits and vegetables?" A questions like this..
Nina.
ReplyDeleteThe most shoking image from the first part of "Food Inc" was the interview with a farmer and her excurse to the hen-house, that shows the real raising and living conditions of the "organic" chicken. Peer testimony told by the lady-farmer accompanied by the visual pictures of the moveless birds, caused by their inability to handle their own weight, is a very powerfull argument used by the author in order to prove his/her thesis, that food production in the US is monopolized and nowadays the farms are nothing else but structure components of the one big system.
2. "Food Inc" film has more informative character then persuasive. The flm just gives the facts of the non-quality food problem without any suggestions of its solution.
1. The image that stood out to me the most was the chickens in the slaughter house. I don't think I will ever forget that image. It was just so shocking to see all those chickens packed in the slaughter house in their feces, the place was just filthy and to think I thought it was a little safer to eat chicken now I'm not to sure.
ReplyDelete2. In the film "Food Inc" not only did I think it was persuasive I also found it to be extremely informative. The film used persuasive as an argument. There is plenty of people who thought it was safe to eat chicken but the film is not telling you to stop it's just informing you of what happens to the chicken before it gets to your plate. I don't think the argument can get any stronger than it already is.
1. I found the part with chickens being treated harshly very striking. This scene was effective because it showed the incredulous, yet vivid images of how those chickens are being treated as. They "fatten up" the chickens on purpose so that it can't get up on its feet. Then the farmers toss around the helpless chickens like garbage bags into the carrier.
ReplyDelete2. The movie, Food Inc., firmly establishes it's persuasive power through vivid visuals, and the title of the movie itself. The movie utilizes implicit argument because it shows the behind the scenes of how chikens are treated before it actually becomes our food. And the title, Food Inc., persuade viewers in a way by hinting out that this movie is pertaining to our food.
1. In fact, the image struck me most was to see how the chicks and cows were throwed and marked. They treated them as crap. My particular point of view is that animals are also part of creation. It may sounds very romantic and tender but really, the images of animal cruelty impacted on me. I think, how I will explain my daughter that we eat and mistreat chicks, when through the comics (cartoons) we teach about loving and respecting animals and nature?. The film made me realize how insensitive we become.
ReplyDelete2. Concerning the persuasive power. I think the film want to promote change and make us reconsider our food choices. The film invites you to make reflections about what we are eating and truly make me reconsider my view. I realized we are quite manipulated by advertising and we ignore too many facts about how food is produced. Since I've seen the documentary I have changed some of my course of action and I plan to continue improving my eating habits, first for my health and second because I will not continue sponsoring the cruelties committed by food producers against animals and ourselves. The film provided sufficient and compelling evidence. Arguments were explicitly used.
1. The image or shot in which I found the most sticking to me in the first half of "Food, Inc." was the part when they compared the average growth of a chicken when being feed on a normal bases to one which was being forced feed with differnet ingredients to make them heaveir and more meatier. I found that in the scene in which they showed the extent of this feeding in which the chickens skeletal structure was not able to keep up with the increase in body fat. These chickens where not able to walk on there own. They also keeped these chickens locked up in a completely dark room so when it was time to catch them they wouldnt put up much of a fight. I dont see the point of that when they couldnt even walk. The reason this was effective was because i could never imagined the cruelty that these animals had to endure. I had an idea, but this should be brought to someones attention. They funny part was when these farmers did not let the person conducting the interview in there torture chambers because of the risk of being exposed.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the film :Food, Inc." uses the power of persaution, or what is know in the book persuation as argument, pretty good. I say this because they where able to get the readers attention not by shooting out disagreemnts with the factories or these corportions but by showing us facts and information. They showered the viewer with this information hoping to reach one goal and I believe that goal was to inform. Tell the viewer the truth about whats going on and how the government is involved. They acheived this by changing the viewers opinions. The argument in which I believe they could of used based on what I would like a documentary like this to show me is that of the explicit argument. I think being able to overtly alter my view is key. This type of argument shows the viewer what is really going on and does not worry about the entertainment portion or value of it.
1.The most thing that shoked me in this movie that is real life, is that the human being in order to satisfy his demands is ready to do everything like for example the demand for the meat had rose so human being thinks how to fulfill this need whatever way it costs and whatever cruelty it gonna be for example the chiks that supposed to be ready in 70 days are ready in 48 days. And the way they treating them it just shows to what the human beeing turned fulfiling his material desire. Like this Company Tyson like mnopoly controls the farmers like their slaves. The way they have company agreemant policy is like slavery they have to follow every thing that company dictates them otherwise NO CONTRACT and they made like Monopoly.
ReplyDeleteAnd the other thing that made me laugh that the phrase TEACHING FISH EATING CORN.
2.I think "FOOD INC" is ivery informative and makes to think.Really makes different your view about certain things like Meat for example and promotes the person to trying to make any change at least in his own daily Food menu