A fast food restaurant, called "Heart Attack Grill in Chandler, Arizona (“A Taste Worth Dying For”)", sued another, Heart Stoppers Sports Grill in Florida for copying its features, "including signs with EKG heart monitors on them, waitresses dressed as nurses and offers of free food to patrons weighing more than 350 pounds". The Heart Attack Grill offers "“flatliner fries” deep fried in pure lard", Jolt Cola, a burger called "Quadruple Bypass Burger", which has around 8000 calories, enough for four days, "free to anyone who weighs over 350 pounds". In her conclusion, the author writes that she is scandalized by the fact that "we still believe that limiting unhealthy food somehow impinges on our freedom", which in other words means that people think about freedom before their own health.
The article has very personal views, with first person pronouns appearing throughout the text. She uses a lot of dramatic facts to give evidence to her thesis, but without trying to convince the reader to join her side, but to only make a simple comment. She also repeats a fact from the second paragraph in the third, emphasizing her emotions, and also creating a repetition which has a impact on the reader. In between the shocking facts and the absurd marketing strategies, she fails to drive the reader to a good conclusion. Her development was well written, interesting, but disappointed the reader when she said she wasn't interested in the whole happening, shortening the development of the article.
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/02/heart_attack_grill_lawsuit/
Hey Deborah! Its Deborah, you could use less quotes and analyze the article rather than paraphrasing the information. The sentence structure is a little confusing because of the excessive use of quotes. When ending a quote the punctuation should be within the quotation marks. It was good considering how short the article was in itself and the analysis of the author's language was to the point and profficient.(From Debibi aka.Papai and Yoshi)
ReplyDelete