Argumentative Essay Example: The Soda Ban

At first, banning sugary drinks like soda doesn’t seem too bad? Banning soda would be for our health. Could that banning of soda lead to the banning of our rights? This is what many argue after New York Mayor Bloomberg decided that it would be a good idea to ban people from buying more than a 16 oz cup of soda. These arguments are included in the readings, “ Three Cheers for the Nanny State”, “Ban the Ban” and “Soda’s a problem but…”. “Ban the Ban” and “Soda’s a problem but…” argue that the soda ban isn’t something that should take place. On the other hand, “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” argues that the soda ban should happen since the lives of the people are at risk. This is why, I believe that “Soda’s a Problem but…” was the most convincing compared to “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” and “Ban the Ban”. Although “Ban the Ban” and “Soda’s a problem but…”  argue the same thing, “Soda’s a problem but…” provides more factual reasoning on why banning soda would be a problem. This text gives more information and many different reasons. This author’s argument does not rely on only one reason. This is why my essay will talk about why “Soda’s a problem but…” is a better opinion piece in wording, reasons, facts and evidence than “Ban the Ban”. In addition, this essay will also include why the government should have limits when getting involved with the public.

To begin, one of the reasons why “Soda’s a problem but…” gives off a more persuasive argument is that this text supports its reasons with facts. Facts make an opinion piece stronger and more reliable. In the text, “Soda’s a problem but…”, it states, “A pizza restaurant would not be able to sell a 2-liter bottle of soda that would be shared out among the children at a birthday party. But they could all have a 16-ounce cup.” Although these statements do not contain any stated site, they do contain logical reasoning. The author supports its reasons with logic and not feelings. For example, the author explains that these regulations would not have an effect on people at all. People will still find a way to get what they want. This is stated on page 288, “The inherent contradictions that make it easy to sneer at such rules have been well-reported and were a good part of why earlier this week a judge stopped the new rules from being implemented.” The author also makes its argument stronger by providing a rebuttal then a counterclaim. The author does this by saying how soda is bad for you, but adding rules will not make a difference. She states that soda is bad, especially in large quantities. This statement goes against the side she is on. But she then explains why this is something the Mayor should have no say in. “Soda’s a problem but…” relies on facts and logical situations.

Secondly, another reason why “Soda’s a problem but…” is a more convincing opinion piece is that the text gives us reasonable explanations. This text’s explanations are said out of logic and do not contain deep emotions. These explanations are real and are things that are likely to happen. Throughout the text, the author explains how this new law is not likely to work. They explain how people will outsmart these new lawsjust like how they have been all these years. According to the text, it states, “ If people are so helpless against soda, the mayor’s edict would be even more meaningless because people would simply buy two 16-ounce cups.” The author is being a realist, and that makes their argument more dependable. Another point we are going to talk about in this essay is that the government should have its limits in how much they should interfere in the lives of their citizens. The text “Soda’s a problem but…” the author also addresses this problem. The author states that the government has the right to interfere when the actions of people are affecting others. For example smoking. She says this in page 289, “There are times when the government has to step in onobviously dangerous situations -- especially those, such as smoking that affect people,  other than the person whose behavior would be curbed...” This is true, the government does have to step in sometimes, but it's only necessary when it's affecting the health of the other people. The government should know when it's necessary and when it's uneccesary.

On the other hand, someone else might say that “Ban the Ban'' provides a more persuasive argument because the author is more emotional. This emotional tone the author gives makes its argument touch the heart of the readers. This is accurate but an argument that contains too much emotion becomes unreasonable. The author of “Ban the Ban” is biased, and this does not make its argument strong. The author includes too much unnecessary opinionated information. For example, “When he insisted on calorie counts being posted, I think many of us cringed--.” This is something the author in “Soda’s a problem but…” does not do. Although the author does state their opinion, they don’t add too much emotion. They don’t over exaggerate it and this makes their argument more reasonable. The tone of the author is informational and they don’t make biased statements. They are proper and reasonable when stating opinions.