Argument Analysis Essay - Sugar Tax

[dani.eric]

Any feedback or comments would be very much appreciated, I have my analysing argument SAC tomorrow.
The following essay is in response to 'I've heard all the arguments against a sugar tax. I'm still calling for one in Australia' by Sarah Wilson.
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/20/ive-heard-all-the-arguments-against-a-sugar-tax-im-still-calling-for-one-in-australia)


Empowered through an assertive and consistent matter-of-fact tone, Sarah Wilson fervently diminishes the intentions of large-scale soda producers and glorifies the implementation of a sugar tax in Australia. Craftily manipulated to grasp the attention of not just Australian consumers, but also those who physically have more to grasp and invest in sugar-dense products, Wilson enforces the benefits of reduced sugar consumption in the adversarial over implementing  tax on sugary soft drinks. Relying on expert opinions from health professionals, logic, reasoning, statistics and a visual aid to change the reader’s perspective of the seemingly infinite benefits of a sugar tax, Wilson leaves the reader with little room to justify joining the opposing side.
 
An all-powerful myriad of global companies endorse the consumption of highly addictive products for financial gain with no scientific validity, claims Wilson. Oozing confidence and experience in the industry, Wilson encapsulates the process companies use to enhance and promote their products through ‘illicitly sponsored’ studies. Through labelling research from the companies as ‘illicit’ and unreliable, the author allows her audience to ponder the truth behind the product marketing they are frequently exposed to and the corrupt nature of the companies promoting it. The reader may feel used and taken advantage of by the sugar-crazed and money hungry companies, increasing their likelihood of them joining her battle towards a sugar tax. Wilson claims that ‘Big Soda’ carelessly ‘throws most of their sugar advertising revenue in poor areas’. Drawing on the power of empathy in readers and impactfully criminalising the big sugar brands. Readers are positioned to advocate for promotion of nutritious foods in all areas as Wilson highlights the impact of sugar on poorer populations.
 
‘Sugar is the new tobacco’ and seen through countries like Mexico, consumption can similarly be reduced through a sugar tax, argues Wilson. Sharing the opinion of a researcher from the Monash University for Health Economics claiming the benefits of a sugar tax ‘in terms of weight reduction’ lends significant weight to her reasoning as readers are likely to view the researcher as a credible source. A coalition of Australian scientists and stakeholders also weigh in on the issue and provide statistics claiming a sugar tax could ‘save the health-care system $609 million over 25 years’. Bound to resonate with the reader’s hip-pocket nerve, Wilson favours their research and more to encourage readers to realise not only the individual, but nation-wide benefits of a sugar tax. Many readers are already backing Wilson, with commenter ‘Claremont6010’ enthusiastically writing a summarised and slightly aggressive version of Wilson’s arguments exclaiming ‘tax unhealthy food and tax it hard’. This comment may influence the reader to agree with Wilson as it creates the idea that many others already have and are naturally drawn to stand where many others already stand.
 
Assertively portraying the idea that sugar intake goes beyond self control undermines companies claiming that it is the consumer’s choices that cause the issue, not the product itself. Wilson uses ‘force-fed’ and other forms of powerfully connotated language to capture the minds of readers and illustrate the image of money-hungry and careless manufacturers shoving sugar-filled products down consumers throats, immediately making readers question the moral standing of the companies. ‘There is absolutely no personal responsibility argument when there is no choice’ states Wilson. This clear, concise statement becomes significantly influential in the mind of the reader as they consider the realistic lack of sugar-free products on offer. An impactful image of an overweight individual attempting to reach a soda can with great difficulty due to the can being placed highly atop coins provokes the idea that there is a relatively basic solution to overconsumption of sugar in Australia through reduction of financial accessibility.

Wilson factually argues that through a sugar tax, low income individuals, who are at higher risk of obesity and associated diseases,  would reduce consumption the most. The author paints a picture of clarity that by reducing an individual’s accessibility to sugary goods, in particular soft drinks, the consumption levels would inevitably decrease. Wilson provides a credible foundation for her mission to disempower major sugar companies and enforce a sugar tax, ultimately making it difficult for readers to say no.

[scout]

Any feedback or comments would be very much appreciated, I have my analysing argument SAC tomorrow.
The following essay is in response to 'I've heard all the arguments against a sugar tax. I'm still calling for one in Australia' by Sarah Wilson.
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/20/ive-heard-all-the-arguments-against-a-sugar-tax-im-still-calling-for-one-in-australia)


Empowered through an assertive <-- maybe just replace this with 'fervent' altogether, instead of placing it later in the sentence and consistent matter-of-fact tone, Sarah Wilson fervently diminishes the intentions of large-scale soda producers and glorifies the implementation of a sugar tax in Australia. Craftily evaluative manipulated to grasp the attention of not just Australian consumers, but also those who physically have more to grasp and invest in sugar-dense products, Wilson enforces the benefits of reduced sugar consumption in the adversarial over implementing  tax on sugary soft drinks. Relying on expert opinions from health professionals, logic, reasoning, statistics and a visual aid to change the reader’s perspective of the seemingly infinite benefits of a sugar tax unnecessary, esp. since you've stated Wilson's contention already, Wilson leaves the reader with little room evaluative, though to address this, you could frame it as if it's Wilson's goal (e.g. "Wilson intends to leave the reader...") to justify joining the opposing side.
 
An all-powerful myriad of global companies endorse the consumption of highly addictive products for financial gain with no scientific validity, claims Wilson so how exactly does this connect with a need for sugar tax?. Oozing confidence and experience in the industry evidence + purpose?, Wilson encapsulates the process companies use to enhance and promote their products through ‘illicitly sponsored’ studies. Through labelling research from the companies as ‘illicit’ and therefore unreliable, the author allows her audience to ponder the truth behind the product marketing they are frequently exposed to and the corrupt nature of the companies promoting it. The reader may feel used and taken advantage of by the sugar-crazed and money hungry companies, increasing their likelihood of them joining her battle towards a sugar tax. Wilson claims that ‘Big Soda’ carelessly ‘throws most of their sugar advertising revenue in poor areas’. Drawing on the power of empathy in readers and impactfully evaluative criminalising the big sugar brands how exactly does carelessly throwing advertising revenue in poor areas = empathy and criminals? Not that you're necessarily wrong, but spell out your reasoning a bit more. Readers are positioned to advocate for promotion of nutritious foods this is going off a tangent - Wilson's argument focuses on sugar tax... unless there's evidence I've missed?  in all areas as Wilson highlights the impact of sugar on poorer populations evidence?
 
‘Sugar is the new tobacco’ don't quote without analysis. This particular one would be nice to analyse and seen through countries like Mexico, consumption can similarly be reduced through a sugar tax, argues Wilson. Sharing the opinion of a researcher from the Monash University for Health Economics claiming the benefits of a sugar tax ‘in terms of weight reduction’ lends significant weight to her reasoning as readers are likely to view the researcher as a credible source. A coalition of Australian scientists and stakeholders also weigh in on the issue and provide statistics claiming a sugar tax could ‘save the health-care system $609 million over 25 years’. Bound to resonate with the reader’s hip-pocket nerve correct --> take it one final step further. HOW does it appeal to the hip-pocket nerve? (just a few extra words to clarify  ), Wilson favours their research and more ?? to encourage readers to realise not only the individual, but nation-wide benefits of a sugar tax. Many readers are already backing Wilson, with commenter ‘Claremont6010’ enthusiastically writing a summarised and slightly aggressive version of Wilson’s arguments exclaiming ‘tax unhealthy food and tax it hard’. This comment may influence the reader to agree with Wilson as it creates the idea that many others already have and are naturally drawn to stand where many others already stand.
 
Assertively portraying the idea that sugar intake goes beyond self control undermines companies claiming that it is the consumer’s choices that cause the issue, not the product itself good! Just frame it more as Wilson's argument, not yours. Wilson uses ‘force-fed’ and other forms of powerfully connotated language to capture the minds of readers unnecessary - doesn't contribute to your analysis, unless you specify how and illustrate the image of money-hungry and careless manufacturers shoving sugar-filled products down consumers throats I get what you're getting at, but this is essentially an elaboration of 'force-fed', not really analysis. Look more at its connotations/implications, immediately making readers question the moral standing of the companies. ‘There is absolutely no personal responsibility argument when there is no choice’ states Wilson. This clear, concise statement becomes significantly influential evaluative in the mind of the reader as they consider the realistic lack of sugar-free products on offer. An impactful evaluative! image of an overweight individual attempting to reach a soda can with great difficulty due to the can being placed highly atop coins provokes the idea that there is a relatively basic solution to overconsumption of sugar in Australia through reduction of financial accessibility. ...by implementing a sugar tax. Ensure you explicitly link back to the contention/argument

Wilson factually argues that through a sugar tax, low income individuals are there others who would benefit too?, who are at higher risk of obesity and associated diseases,  would reduce consumption the most. The author paints a picture of clarity evaluative that by reducing an individual’s accessibility to sugary goods through a sugar tax (contention), in particular soft drinks, the consumption levels would inevitably decrease ...likewise the increasing trend of obesity (link to contention). Wilson provides a credible foundation for her mission to disempower major sugar companies and enforce a sugar tax, ultimately making it difficult too definitive. Consider "discouraging readers from..."  for readers to say no.

Hi dani.eric, I only saw this post today - I know it's after your SAC, but hope you find it useful 

Disclaimer: I'm also a Yr 12 student. My comments are only suggestions based on my knowledge.