For my next post, I'll be presenting a rhetorical analysis on the health impacts of artificial sweeteners. We hear about artificial sweeteners a lot in the media, and their supposed health benefits and risks. We might even see the occasional discussion chain about artificial sweeteners on social media sites. Whether it's a result of clever advertising or popular misinformation, it's our job as informed readers to be able to distinguish the truth from myths. That's also why I chose this topic; I feel like it would be an interesting thing to really understand the details about.
I'll be discussing the approaches and points of views from two academic disciplines: biology (or, more specifically, immunology) and nutrition science. The two articles that I'll be referencing from these disciplines include original research, and present the implications of the artificial sweeteners differently. The biologist/immunologist point of view is very detailed, and explains the mechanics behind what happened during their experiment, but "fails to deliver" in the end, or explain how these could impact the future for the reader. The nutrition science point of view thoroughly relates its findings with the reader and what's happening in the real world, but does not completely explain the details behind why some of the results happened. Only seeing one side of this topic and not the other could result in an ultimately incomplete understanding, or maybe even misinformed position, which is why seeing the differences and strengths between these two approaches is crucial.
No comments:
Post a Comment