According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, identifying effective intervention strategies that can target both improvements in physical activity and providing a nutritious diet to reduce childhood obesity are important.” (Karnik, 21). There has been a rising concern on whether or not the government needs to be involved in this childhood obesity epidemic. Sameera, Karnik, and Amar Kanekar give an amazing detailed article on how important it is to get involved with children through the government and through organizations. The first thing that they set to do, is informing the masses on the increase in the obesity of children and the magnitude of the situation that we as a whole are dealing with, they also confront the issues with more facts that are backed up by the viewpoints from Amy E Thompson. Next, we will go over the information provided by am opposing article and compare the work between the too. The Authors of this very compelling article make it easy to understand an analyze their point of view. “Childhood obesity prevalence among preschool children between age group of 2-5-year-old girls and boys has increased from 5.0 to 10% between 1976-1980 and 2007-2008 and it has increased from 6.5 to 19.6% among the age group of 6-11-year-olds.” (Karnik, 6). They don’t just make these claims without proof to back up their article, the steps they take is to get information from (NHANES), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (which is handled through the government), to support the claims made. You can really appreciate that in the article it makes certain that they have a plethora of credible sources for you to look back too.
The writers are very particular about how they describe their issues of childhood obesity. Instead of using pathos on an issue, the writer uses logos to really solidify the position of government involvement. Something established already was the increase in obesity. After these examples are given it goes on to describe the negative effects the body has for being unhealthy at a young age. “Obese children have a high risk of cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure, and increased cholesterol levels. Childhood obesity increases the risk of having insulin resistant type 2 diabetes. Children may have a high risk of having respiratory problems like asthma as well. ” (Karnik 14-13). When this is described the article gives a clearer view on who she intends her audience to be, because of the way they lead the dangers of not being informed. The viewer can clearly see that it is directed towards any person teaching or parenting their children, they do this to get adults more aware of the issues through the medical perspective of the government. But this is not enough to prove that anything that Sameer is implying is accurate, which is why we look to a woman named Amy E Thompson, a medical doctor for children. Mrs.Thompson goes on to say “Health problems associated with childhood obesity include high cholesterol, high blood pressure, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes, joint pain, asthma, sleep apnea, and fatty liver disease.” (Thompson, 2015) . In Conclusion to this, we find credibility in the claim of the authors Sameera, Karnik and Amar Kanekar, through a medical doctor (Amy E Thompson). Who proves how obesity can only lead to worse of an issue among children. Sameera, Karnik and Amar Kanekar don’t just give us what is wrong with the rate of obesity in children, she takes it a step further be implicating what good the government has done to prevent these issues and stop the increase. “The United States government is changing the health policies involving transportation, land use, education, agriculture, and economics so that it can have an important impact on healthy environment and health of people, in turn, reducing obesity.The United States government, along with other health organizations, is developing healthy environments like improving population access to healthy and fresh foods, building walk paths, bike paths, and playgrounds in underserved communities.” (Karnik, 21). With this in mind she gives the tone a lighthearted change and proof of possibilities, which is a great way to go about making an issue known and giving the solution, the way the article transition from what is going on negatively, to what the government is doing to solve it makes her claims and viewpoint much more agreeable.
Although Sameer has quite a strong argument and logos driven article overall, there are still those who deny the existence of this issue and the negativity that goes about bring the government to the solution. Daren Bakst another commentator to this issues believes that the government should not be involved in these issues, Baskst makes it a point to add his displeasure to that fact that Michelle Obama, and advocate in the road to children’s health and wellness, is trying to “Co-parent” children when that is not her responsibility.”But attending Ivy-League schools doesn’t magically make someone better parent material than an individual who attended a public university, or, dare it to be said, someone who didn’t attend college. It also doesn’t mean that she should be a co-parent to your children. ” (Baskst, 2016). Throughout the article, Daren Baskst seems quite emotional and less factual on this issue. The article leads a more snarky pathos approach to the issue, which is much different to the claim and factual side of Sameera, Karnik and Amar Kanekar. Sameer Karnik leaves little to no error in her approach to her opinion, by leaving facts and informational info to support her claims. Furthermore, The main point made is how issues are created without the government involvement. The authors explained how much change could be made if we had only learned to accept help from those who are more aware, which is the government. Keeping the writing steady, informative, and well thought out, the organized article was intended to get attention and that excelled highly in execution. The impressive diction and logos combined with a passionate viewpoint make this article credible and reliable. This informative article should give you a clear viewpoint on the issues at large and give you a reason to pause and ask yourself this rhetorical question, Why can’t the government be involved in helping and benefiting my children’s health?