essay for $15

Professor Gonzalez

ENC 1101

8, March 2019

Rhetorical Analysis: The Only Way To Have A Cow

To meat or not to meat is one of the biggest concerns in the 21st century as our food choices are compromising our principles and environment. Recently, I encountered an article which presented the very controversial meat thesis. The article by Bill McKibben speaks on the consumption of animal flesh and its connection to climate change. Sadly, after reading and analyzing it, I found his persuading methods disappointing. Despite of the fact that Mr. Bill McKibben presents worth-considering points in his “THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE A COW” piece of writing, he does not effectively persuade college students.

McKibben uses a variety of sources, and intends to emotionally move his audience yet, he manages to lose his audience mid-way through each paragraph making this article a piece which students would only read and analyze if imposed by a professor or a curriculum. Not only does he lack credibility and an effective use of pathos but, the author also tends to confuse his audience with his vocabulary choice taking away the logistic sense of the piece. For example, I spoke with colleagues of mine from Miami Dade College who were familiar with the article and the most common feedback I received were complains on the word choice. I am referring to fluent English speakers, Bilingual, and Trilingual students who all concurred the article was not simple or pleasurable to read because of the unfamiliar terms. Unfortunately, college students are prone to feel discouraged by unknown terms causing them to lose interest in the piece of writing since to them “it does not make sense”.

Furthermore, let’s keep in mind that McKibben is a writer and Environmentalist—a person who is concerned or advocates for the protection of the environment—meaning that he may be perceived as highly bias. This leads the audience to assume that the points he presents are merely research-based. However, when I say “assume” it is a little more literal than you probably expected, this is caused by the fact that Mr. McKibben goes throughout the article making several claims with absolutely zero credibility. Beginning with the second paragraph, sentence 3, the author cites a study who he himself admits “was quickly discredited” (McKibben 32). Even after this atrocity he proceeds to give “data” with “facts” and numbers for almost a whole paragraph and apparently forgets to inform students where did he get the information. This issue continues throughout the whole essay and it seems as if the author would cite only when desired and he does it again when in the sixth paragraph, last sentence, he cites “recent…research…” (McKibben 33) or paragraph seven, third sentence, “...some studies suggest...” and fails to provide the reader with actual references. This type of omission causes the writer to lose vital trust from the audience forcing them to see his argument as weak and not reliable.

Although credibility was the biggest problem I found in this piece of writing, I must admit it was not the only one. Allow me to remind you the article speaks on an extremely controversial topic—meat eating—and, that his audience are college students. It is universal knowledge that college students are hormone driven and emotional, which you would think would make them an easier target when using pathos to persuade. However, McKibben does not effectively emotionally impact his audience. He begins his Article speaking on personal experience but in a very straight forward manner using words like “defensively” (McKibben 32) and stating that “hamburgers just don’t come into play” (McKibben32) when it comes to his personal life. Never allowing the reader to connect or empathize. He then carries on with his “fact” based article using minimum pathos. Techniques as this one may be effective on a different audience; college students would not feel connected nor involved in the topic causing them to respond distant and uninterested.

Regardless of the unfortunate mistakes mentioned above, McKibben without a doubt put together a very organized essay while presenting various worth-considering points. He for example talks about England’s meat consumption concern and how they were trying to cut their meat-eating habits, pointing out that it is a global issue. What is more, he mentions why cows are now more dangerous to the environment than before, in the fifth paragraph, second sentence he states “they didn’t stand still in feedlots waiting for corn” (McKibben 33) pointing out that the reason why they are putting excessive methane out to the environment is because they do not have any type of exercise. He then offers a solution to rotate the cows as an attempt to offer them more movement. These are a few of the many point that would’ve been effective if backed up with reliable sources and/or presented in a more emotional/logistic manner.

It is essential for writers who target college students to do a good job. These are the authors who are educating the youth and building their mind. Articles like this not only could discourage students to read but also set a bad example as writers. Conveying a message through emotion, logic, and facts should be second nature to authors and it should be the example that college students are exposed to. In my beliefs, this article had huge potential and a very important topic which young adults should be educated on. Sadly, the readers weren’t engaged and most likely did not get as much as they could have from this piece. Therefore, it is an obvious conclusion that the article was ineffective on his targeted audience.

Work Cited

McKibben, Bill. "The Only Way to Have a Cow." A World of Health: Connecting People, Place and Planet, Northwest Earth Institute: 2010, pp. 32-33.