'Big Fat Tax Analysis\r'

'In the article â€Å" openhanded ample taskation is no gut associate” pen Susie O’brien attacking the new assess revenue in number on the fast provender industry. By the scuttle slogan, â€Å"DON’T tax the big mac” she asserts her position on the tax. Written in heady the slogan immediately catches the eye and as it sprucely rhymes is very memorable. The author continues in cementing her standing on the issue by saying that a cast away food tax is not the answer and the rhetorical question that, â€Å"why should reducing our weight lift out with our wallets? Her target audience with this piece would be those for the tax as she argues that there are downsides to a tax on fast food as come up as alternatives that could be better. The image plastered in the centre of the article shows a man do of fast food. It relates to the subject of the article yet scorn the amount of greasy fast food as intimately seems appetising. The author in addi tion states that she is definitely for helping toilsome Australians however that a fat tax is not the answer.We see colloquial language which creates a look of comfortability with the author when she states a fat tax is much(prenominal) a, â€Å" wiz-pronged solution” whilst also dismissing the idea as small-minded. The ghost she has written in persuades readers to agree as she says, â€Å"it ( disposal) pile remove every damned junk food vending machines from gyms, sport club houses and schools. ” The power in which the author says this cites her statement a real exchange point as if she is part of a protest.Whilst stiff language like â€Å"damned” and the rhetorical/ slopped question of â€Å"why do so some(prenominal) an(prenominal) parents reward kids for playing sport with a mailboat of chips? ” This sentence gives readers who do this a mavin of crime whilst those who don’t may find it amusing. She thusly goes on to give the audi ence someone else to demonic for their fat with the rhetorical question of, â€Å"Why not start by cracking down on irresponsible food labelling? She continues on with fact and look for as she states that all our foods are, â€Å"choc-full of toxic ingredients like double-dyed(a) fats, trans fats, palm oil and high-fructose corn syrup, which is one of the steer sweeteners in food, but is very hard for the personate to effectively break down. ” This makes the author seem inner on the subjects which can persuade readers into trusting her as she clearly knows what she’s talking about. The author gives many alternatives to a fat tax which seem impartial to impose as rise up as rational to reducing obesity rates.The author proposes ideas such as setting up safer pedestrian walkways so that masses (especially kids) may walk to places such as the topical anesthetic shops/schools. Inside these alternative solutions she can now routine it back on the fat tax by usi ng loaded sentences such as, â€Å"Why does every social solution seem to involve winning money out of my pocket and putting it into exchequer? ” as well as, â€Å"In short, if it (the government) wanted to, it could pause this problem in its tracks. But instead its creation told merely to increase taxes.Talk about punishing the victim. ” The author befriends her audience and makes it seem like she’s one of us/on our side so that it persuades readers to come round to her view. Her use of rhetorical questions makes readers come to assumptions that she wants them to. Whilst also giving them someone to blame in the government alluding that they are hardly out for out money. Her goodish final sentence, â€Å"So lets forget fads like tax on fast food, that will just make takeaways more expensive and will do null to change the way people live their lives.Lets do more to change every single twenty-four hours to make life healthier for everyone. ” leaves r eaders with a sense of duty and that the author’s aim is simply to help us, the people persuading us to be against the fat tax. Susie O’brien uses rhetorical questions and loaded language to prattle readers into making assumptions about the government and the fat tax. cagey slogans and imagery helps her arguments be memorable as well as logical. She creates someone to blame as well as alternative solutions which makes a fat tax seem small-minded. This persuades readers to agree with her postion.\r\n'