It seems reasonable to claim that a balanced diet is a key to significant health. At the same time, malnutrition means not only a calorie deficit, but also its excess, in particular in the consumption of salt, sugar, and the lack of whole grains and fruits in the diet. An excess of red meat and processed meat products (sausages), sweetened drinks, and trans fats (primarily margarine in confectionery and sauces) also lead to an imbalance. A balanced diet can barely be achieved by consuming food in cafes, restaurants, and streets. Hans Taparia argues that despite the drastic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, one of their primary positive outcomes is that people have started cooking at home. Such an approach implies several essential benefits that Taparia rationally emphasizes. This paper aims to sum and analyze her opinion published in the New York Times on the theme and provide a discussion on the way she delivers the message to the audience.
In her publication, Hans Taparia, a clinical associate professor at NYU Stern School of Business, claims that coronavirus has led to several notable improvements within the scope of cooking at home. Her opinion, originally titled “How Covid-19 Is Making Millions of Americans Healthier”, appeared in the New York Times in April of 2020. She points out that home cooking contributes to a remarkable state of affairs and goes more specific by saying, “the frequency and consistency of cooking presents a tremendous public health opportunity” (Taparia, 2020, para. 3). Taparia (2020) supports such a statement by referencing the survey, according to which “54 percent of respondents said they cook more than before the pandemic” (para. 4). What is more, about half of these respondents also claimed that they would continue to cook more even when the Covid-19 pandemic ends. She cites many recognized persons in the sphere, as well as gives real-life examples.
Then, she explains that the facts provided by the survey and these examples have the greatest extent of importance. At this point, she refers to credible studies that prove the argument that people who continuously cook at home consume healthier food and get fewer calories than the ones who do not tend to cook. She develops her thoughts and says that time-taking practice to obtain necessary skills and knowledge in the framework of cooking is among the primary barriers to this undertaking. However, it is at the top of the curriculum for many people who are not involved in the operating of the US economy’s essential segments. Taparia (2020) also oversees naysayers’ disagree with the claim that “an increase in the frequency of cooking does not necessarily mean we are getting healthier during the pandemic” (para. 12). Plenty of Covid-19’s consequences make one stress-eat and consume unhealthy food in an inappropriate amount. Then, due to the fact gyms are not opened and people’s movement is restricted, a lot of persons are currently considerably sedentary.
It should be mentioned that the author immediately addresses such statements. She uses an antithesis, “But we are acquiring an ancient skill that has been shown to help people live better and longer” (Taparia, 2020, para. 12). This approach might be considered persuasive as the presence of appropriate rhetorical tricks results in a coherent train of thought. She also broadens the scope of her opinion and refers to various positive cooking outcomes. The author gives significant examples, starting from the fact that this activity provides food with less sugar and fat and ending with the emergence of culinary schools at universities. She concludes her article with a sound expression that the lessons of the pandemic should not be forgotten as newfound proficiencies can be lifesaving.
Here, it seems rational to notice that Taparia includes an efficient appeal to pathos and logos. Despite this, the author could have added an appeal to ethos because she has the necessary background, knowledge, and experience to express a professional opinion on the topic. It should be emphasized that she does not use appealing to the ethos at all, which may be defined as the weak point of the article. It is known that a coherent and consistent combining of ethos, logos, and pathos is the most effective way to achieve a high level of persuasion. However, it should be admitted that Taparia utilizes appeals to logos and pathos significantly. Due to the latter, the article does not lose its sufficient extent of convincing.
Taparia refers to numerous studies, findings, and publications while arguing in favor of cooking at home. All the links to these sources are valid, and their authors demonstrate credibility and reliability. What is more, she refers to authors who might be perceived as popular in the sphere, and the reader who is interested in and relatively acquainted with the topic will find Taparia’s opinion persuasive. She does not provide blurred or inconsistent statistics but gives concrete numbers that are directly related to the pressing issue. Appeals to logos are presented mostly in the first part of the article – with pertinent commentaries – and then discussed rationally.
The appeal to pathos appears throughout the text and is presented without exaggeration that could make the audience to be more critical. For instance, Taparia (2020) states, “tragedy and fear are making us stress-eat, as we drown ourselves in tubs of ice cream or binge bake” (para. 12). It is said concerning coronavirus, and this can cause an emotion because the Covid-19 pandemic is associated with dire events and feelings. Furthermore, she efficiently argues that currently, there is a necessity for cooking at home. “That need has never been higher since the coronavirus has been most threatening to people with food-related chronic diseases” (Taparia, 2020, para. 16). Here, the author uses the power of threat that may lead to strong emotion. Moreover, right after this, she refers to a credible article. It is a notable example of how Taparia combines appeals to pathos and logos.
Then, Taparia does a good job of addressing the questions of “so what?” and “who cares?” in her publication. The former is answered several times so that the reader could realize the idea. First, the fourteenth paragraph reveals that “frequent cooking could make a difference in outcomes – on average, people who frequently cook at home eat less fat and sugar than other people” (Taparia, 2020, para. 14). These fat and sugar lead to many health-related diseases. Second, according to the sixteenth paragraph, cooking at home allows people to decrease risks from coronavirus as it threatens ones with food-related illnesses to the greatest extent (Taparia, 2020). Given such concise addressing, the audience might easily believe the core idea of the article.
Taparia also clearly and precisely answers the question “who cares?”. She mentions that cooking at home is essential for those who have problems with diseases related to food consumption. For these people, the issue of not increasing the risk of being affected by coronavirus has become acute. She also emphasizes that the mentioned activity might be considered as the family one. Usually, families tend to spend a lot of time together when it comes to cooking. In the current conditions of the need to stay at home, this cooking may become a catalysator for strengthening and warming the relationships. Given the fact that the pandemic puts significant pressure on society, it is vital to figure out any benefits that people can get from the contemporary situation. A lot of readers could easily associate themselves with the ones to whom the article is dedicated. This, again, serves as a great foundation for taking into account the arguments and facts provided.
To conclude, the above analysis shows that Taparia has conducted a consistent and exhaustive investigation on the theme and presented it appropriately. The primary idea of her opinion is that the tendency to cook at home – one of the positive consequences of the current situation – is a great opportunity for health. However, she reasonably admits that this activity does not make one healthier itself – it is rather an important prerequisite for such a state of affairs. The latter addresses a naysayer sufficiently and gives an unprejudiced tone to the publication. It is also found that the author effectively appeals to logos and pathos. Nevertheless, it seems that she does not appeal to the ethos at all, which might reduce the extent of persuasion. Finally, it is claimed that Taparia answers the questions “so what?” and “who cares?” properly – it might result in the reader’s trust.
Reference
Taparia, H. (2020). How Covid-19 is making millions of Americans healthier. The New York Times. Web.