Nial Wheate: A Rhetorical Analysis

560 Words3 Pages
Nial Wheate, a senior lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the University of Sydney, wrote the persuasive article "Red meat 's a tasty treat but too much can give you cancer". His intention is to inform the Australian meat lovers that the properties found in red meat can increase the risk of cancer. With a serious and concerning tone Wheate appeals to the logic and reasoning of the audience by the use of statistics. The formal tone leads to the belief that this is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately. The article incorporates two photograph, one of raw pieces of red meat and the other of four sausages on a plate, to draw the reader in by seeing some of Australia 's most iconic foods. This article is a direct appeal to…show more content…
The use of evidence, appeal to patriotism and fear all appeal to the emotions of the reader and recommends that they make a change. The hard-hitting evidence that bowel cancer "kills more than 4000 people" every year brings the realisation of the reality of this issue. Death is a topic that strikes an emotion in the majority of the population, as most have experienced it, therefore this use of evidence catches the attention of the reader, making them feel more engaged with the article and connected with it 's contents. Barbecues are a staple part to the Australian culture. The articulation that this new found information is "bad news" for those who enjoy the iconic tradition causes the reader feel dismayed. By following the appeal to patriotism with the question of whether there is "safe level of consumption" of red meat, the writer proposes that the much loved barbecue can be redeemed. This leads to the reader believing they can enjoy their beloved meat at the same time as retaining their health. By using alarming facts and figures Wheate appeals to the fear of readers. With statements such as "kills 100 people each year" the reader is fearful of whether their life will also add to this statistic. This causes them to not only question whether they are increasing their chance at developing cancer but also challenges them to make a change to their
Open Document