Thesis Statement: Junk food companies should not be allowed to target children in advertisements because it could lead to obesity and other long-term health effects.
Claim 1: Childhood obesity is in fact a problem and a large statistic in America, leading to numerous long-term health effects.
–Evidence: It has been found that 32.3% of children in America were considered overweight or obese in the years 2011-2012. 5.9% of these children were deemed category 2 obese and 2.1% were deemed category 3 obese. This type of lifestyle can lead children to long-term health effects such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes (Faguy, 2016).
Claim 2: Food advertising directed at children has been found to be one factor contributing to obesity and is considered an area of concern and change for the prevention of obesity.
-Evidence: One group of researchers found that junk food commercials accounted for 11% to 29% of commercials watched during peak viewing time of 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm. They also found that 53% to 87% of those advertisements were advertising foods that were high in undesirable nutrition or energy levels (Kelly, Halford, Boyland, Chapman, Bautista-Castano, Berg, & Serra-Majem, 2010).
-Evidence: Researcher Andrew Harvey (2013) found that according to a 2008 FTC report there were a reported 44 companies that spent a total combined amount of $1.6 billion on advertisements that targeted children. He also found that in 2007 it was found that children’s television networks broadcasted approximately three and a half minutes of junk food ads per hour, versus the two minutes found in “adult” broadcast stations.
Claim 3: Unhealthy food companies are finding other methods of advertising through the internet which are having the same negative effects and contributing to childhood obesity.
-Evidence: In 2013 it was found that 3.4 billion food advertisements were displayed on popular children’s websites. 84% of those advertisements contained high fat, sugar and sodium (Ustjanauskas, Harris, & Schwartz, 2013).
Claim 4: When presented with food cravings such as fast food and candy as advertised, children will reach for those unhealthy options versus healthy options.
-Evidence: A research lasting two years to study BMI levels. The study found that when faced with environmental triggers such as advertisements, children chose the unhealthy options versus healthier options (Folkvord, Anschutz, & Buijzen, 2016).
Claim 5: Regardless of attempts made at federal legislation, no change has been made restricting junk food advertisements targeting children.
-Evidence: There have been attempts made for federal regulation restricting these types of advertisements towards children, but the attempts have not been successful. These attempts include the BBB’s “Children Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative” and the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. These initiatives have been compared to prior successful attempts at federal regulation of tobacco companies targeting children and argues similar action be put into place (Harvey, 2013).
After reviewing my outline and then looking at the claims in order through this discussion, I have decided to change the original order in which my claims appeared throughout the body of the paper. I did find one fallacy in claim 4. I found myself using Hasty Generalization when saying “children will reach for those unhealthy options versus healthy options”. Instead of saying this I plan to say “it has been shown children may reach for those unhealthy options over the healthy options”. I feel that my claims support my thesis as well-supported premises in the fact that they provide supporting evidence as follows:
Premise 1: Childhood obesity is a rising issue in America leading to health effects.
Premise 2: Food advertising on television has been found to be a contributing factor to childhood obesity.Premise 3: Food companies are now also advertising through internet ads on children’s websites.
Premise 4: Children have been found to choose unhealthy options when presented with temptation through these ads.
Premise 5: All previous attempts at federal legislation have failed.Conclusion: Therefore, government should consider passing federal legislation preventing these companies to advertise to children to help reduce childhood obesity.
Thesis Statement: Employer’s responsibility includes the physical safety of its employees and their families through affordable healthcare.
Claim: To develop lower cost policies, providers are removing certain services, and increasing fees for others. Most Healthcare companies are trying to increase premiums to employers, and therefore the costs get passed down to the employees. HFM, (2016) p.68
Evidence 1: Healthcare premiums are increasing due to higher costs that are charged because of extra activities and procedures being placed on them by the government.
Claim 2: The Gallup Polls continue to show that more Americans continue to disapprove. Obamacare each year. According to Fact Check.org the rates have increased by about 3 percent each year. Lenzer, J. (2014)
Evidence 2: The people of spoken through polls and have proven how they disbelieve in government ran health care and it’s ineffectiveness.
The more I read into the logic and fallacies, the more I feel that I tend to push or persuade my beliefs into my claims. I guess that was due to having an interest into this subject. How do you feel about healthcare and who should take on the financial burden? Should it be the government, they tried and have had no success, maybe this was due to the type of policies, still allowing private companies to offer healthcare. Other countries have succeed in running a healthcare system but that was due to the oversight of the system. Employees, should they pay a part of the insurance? They should have a small portion, but when you look into the average salary ten years ago to now, the percentage is not nearly what it is for the average cost of living. Should the Employers bare the financial burden? Well they can increase their sales to compensate for the slight medical coverage costs. If they have to charge slight more for the product or service, it would still be a better than the employee or government providing the health care.