Rhetorical Analysis of Public Argument

Vanessa Brown

English 102

Mr. Chu

Rhetorical Analysis of Public Argument

Olivia Boyer did her public argument project on the issue of whether the government run SNAP should force food stamp recipients to purchase healthy food instead of junk food.   She made her argument public by creating a survey on twitter that includes a self -written article on the issue and posted it on The United States Department of Agriculture website.   She hopes the article is persuasive enough so that people will vote, on her survey, to have food stamp recipients forced to buy healthy food.   The Author, Olivia, does not clearly identify her audience, but throughout the paper I could tell it was meant for the head of the government funded program called SNAP who distribute food stamps because they are the only ones who could put this change into action.   While Olivia may not be directly affected by the food stamp crisis, she has credible research that evaluates why there should be a change brought to SNAP’s consideration.   Her well-researched argument however isn’t presented in a public manor that will bring about change.  
The arguments in Olivia’s article are highly persuasive to an audience like myself, young adults not on food stamps who have no control over the issue.   She states that by restricting those on food stamps from purchasing unhealthy food obesity and diabetes levels will go down which is appealing to many citizens in America.   However, Olivia does not include any statistics that prove that people on food stamps are eating unhealthy.   It is difficult to consider this an issue with her lack of background information on the health of those on food stamps.   This article she writes is not very persuasive to the intended audience of governmental officials in charge of SNAP, because it does not offer a beneficial return for the government.   The government may loose money through this enforcement of healthy foods because healthy items can cost more.   A...