In the article "Giving Kids Candy Is Anything But Sweet" by David Beasley. Beasley brings forth a discussion about the safety and appropriateness of giving children candy. Beginning in the article Beasley talks about how the availability of candy is all around and while parents like himself closely monitor their children's sugar intakes. Beasley brings together a piece of information claiming that candy intake is the direct cause of obesity and diabetes in young children. While Beasley tries to prove his point, he is unable to offer other sources of information and turns to his own opinion in order to sway the audience approval. Overall, Beasley claims that everyone should follow his ideas for sugar intake, by using coin counting, and other activities to use instead of candy. In the end Beasley gives the audience a choice, either follow him or risk their children getting sick.
Like many parents, David Beasley has different views on protecting his children such as allowing his children to have candy or not. In particularly, he has every right to decide what his kids can eat, being as he is their father. For this reason, he is allowed to voice his opinion in what he believes is best for his children. Nevertheless, Beasley has his strengths and weaknesses in his attempt to persuade me in his article, "Giving Kids Sugar Is Anything But Sweet"- Beasley’s article was filled with logical mistakes such as his use of oversimplification, tangents, and his use of false analogies (That results in the authenticity of his claim).
The author did a good job with Stage 1 and that was to capture my attention. First, the title sparked my curiosity because it states "Giving kids candy is anything but sweet" which made me wonder how candy could be anything but sweet? The hook caught my attention by appearing to me as a neutral, happy situation. The author kept my attention by providing many examples of candy and how it's bad for you in his suggestion.
While the author did a good job of stating that candy is not good for you, he did not convince me that candy is a problem that threatens the safety of children. First, the goal of stage 2 is to convince the reader that "they" have a problem that needs to be solved. For example, the author is trying to convince me that if I don't solve this problem children could have a lower life expectancy caused by candy (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). When in fact every parent has their own belief and style when raising their children. Also, candy may not be considered harmful to different households. Also, he references that in his daughter's school having less than six candy bars means "...you simply weren’t popular" (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). While some kids are popular and other kids aren't the problem isn't based on the amount of candy you have. In fact, most people are popular because of their personal characteristics.
The author did not do a good job with stage 3. There were three logical mistakes the author had made resulting in his argument becoming completely invalid.
The author's first mistake was using "oversimplification" when stating candy causes diabetes and obesity (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). First, candy is not the cause of diabetes and obesity. The disease is the result of too much sugar being in the blood. For example, I work with a boy named Elliot, who has Type 1 diabetes. Elliott was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes over a year ago as a result of his genetics says his doctors. In another case, many people are obese and do not have diabetes and can live a healthy life. Also, the causes of diabetes are still not fully understood and can only be diagnosed by a trained doctor. While the author may have read a report about the causes of diabetes, he is not a doctor and appears to hold little knowledge about the subject. Nevertheless, he claims that eating candy will indefinitely result in diabetes (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). In fact, candy consumption falls under poor diet management which can lead to obesity and possibly diabetes. Overall, The author elaborates very little on candy being the only cause of obesity and end up leading to diabetes while at the same time failing to offer the causes of obesity in the first place.
The author's second mistake was using a false analogy. While comparing candy to the "...dangers of drugs…" (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). The point of using an analogy is to compare two things that have essential similarities. The author was comparing candy to being the same thing as shooting up heroin when in fact they are completely different. Drugs have a cause and effect. They can kill you or help you, while sugar is considered a drug it is completely harmless unless taken in massive quantities.
The author's third mistake was using tangents during his argument such as red herring. As the author pitched his idea of giving out pennies in place of candy, he out of nowhere starts talking about the president "...at least until our president saves social security" (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). The topic of politics has nothing to do with why candy shouldn't be handed out. In fact, the author knowingly placed this tangent in a paragraph where he hoped I would not notice. In spite of the authors attempt to pull one over on me it appears the author makes that same mistake quite a few times. For example, in paragraph 6, the author discussed the candy intake from last Halloween being so large that he had to teach his daughter how to graph the different type of candies. The author then jumps to "...throwing all of the candy away in frustration" (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). The entire paragraph has nothing to do with explaining why candy is bad for you. Instead, the author purposely tries to distract me so he can avoid being asked where his proof is?
While I understand what he wants me to do, he does not convince me to do it. In paragraph 7, he states alternatives to giving out candy such as "giving out pennies" (Beasley, 2005, p. 7). So they can deposit them in a savings account. However, the whole point of giving out candy is supposed to be fun for children. When in fact kids don't care about pennies, choosing to give out pennies takes the fun and enjoyment out of the whole concept in general. Also, Beasley also states instead of giving out birthday bags, give out boxes of raisins. Thus, Continuing on the fact that kids don't think it's fun either and to the contrary that raisins have a lot of sugar in them already. Finally, the two stated alternatives are not equal in comparison to the enjoyment of candy.
In another article "Should You Let Your Children Have Candy" by Varda Epstein. Epstein explains that eating to much sugar as a child can actually change the way your child perception of how foods taste. The author adds that instead of saying just "NO" to your child you can say things like "‘Chemicals are not so good for us. It’s okay to have them sometimes, but we don’t want to make it a habit, because we want to make healthy choices, right?’. While the author has no intention in siding with (candy is good). She does explain that giving sugar in moderation can diminish the chances of your child going behind your back and sneaking and lying about it. So in the end, the author states that there’s truly no way to keep your child from candy, there are ways to ensure that your child is healthy and understands the effects that sugar has on their body.
Overall, David Beasley's article is very inspiring and humble. In his article he knows that there are people with different views about this topic, his whole point was to share the importance of his children’s safety and health from a parents point of view. Beasley succeeded and sharing his thoughts two others. while the message might have been hidden or unclear, the emotion and value between parent and child is something everyone can understand.