Claire Churchwell

ENG 111
Mr. Weinkam
22 October 2009

Muhtar Kent and Leonhardt Soda Tax Rhetorical Analysis

It is no secret that the ever-growing problem of obesity in America must be dealt with. In

order to support a national health care budget, congress officials have suggested a soda tax. With

this tax, it is expected that with a three-cent tax per twelve-ounce sugary beverage, the tax would

matriculate twenty-four billion dollars over the next four years. Reducing obesity, diabetes and

other illnesses caused by poor diets, as well as setting aside a budget for health care seems ideal.

However, this “sin tax” could be taking logic and throwing it out the window. Some believe it

defies ethics to tax every naughty behavior that the average American participates in. Muhtar

Kent and David Leonhardt offer a side to each argument. Muhtar Kent in “Coke Didn’t Make

America Fat”, utilizes logical facts, logos, and pathos to support his argument, claiming,

“Americans need more exercise, not another tax.” On the other hand, Leonhardt relies on

exaggerated claims and pathos in “Sodas a Tempting Tax” to backbone his argument that this

would be the most logical way to achieve the nation’s goal.

First, Kent supports his argument using statistics, logic and pathos. He presents statistical

data provided by reputable sources such as the National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, which gives his argument credibility from an outside source.

Instead of placing accountability on sugary beverages like soda, he effectively persuades the

reader to realize that the bigger issue at stake is how Americans fail to engage in necessary

physical activity, which, of course, would prevent a vast majority of health issues, obesity at the

forefront. He states, “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that 60% of

1
Americans are not regularly active and 25% of Americans are not active at all.” This statistic is

legitimate proof that there is clearly a bigger issue at hand: much needed exercise. He further

elaborates on this point by stating that soda is not the primary cause of weight gain, considering

94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages that exclude soda all together. He

continues to explain the obvious lack of ethics in this approach to a health care budget: where is

the line drawn to taxing naughty American’s naughty behavior? He goes on to assert that the two

States that have already put a soda tax in effect, Arkansas and West Virginia, have two of the

highest rates of obesity, proving that one of the main issues they are trying to fix is falling short

of being eradicated. He segues into a Pathos approach by targeting the guilty conscience present

in Americans, stating that we (as individuals and as a society) need to take responsibility for our

own diets. Considering the countless lawsuits over McDonalds fast food weight gain, as well as

anyone who does not like to accept responsibility for their own problem, this is a concrete way to

go. Anyone feeling guilty and insecure about their weight will undoubtedly feel worse by being

reminded that they are ultimately at fault, resulting in the urge to change their lifestyle habits. In

his second attempt at pathos, he asserts, “Policy makers should stop spending their valuable time

demonizing an industry that directly employs more than 220,000 people in the United States”

By reminding the reader that the soda industry is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs

(especially in a time of challenging economic decline), he evokes guilt and shame; the reader

almost feels like a bad American for contesting their motives and positive contribution to the

economy. Finally, Kent reminds us of the many healthier alternatives to soda that Americans opt

for instead of the full-calorie option.

In contrast to Kent’s approach to persuasion, Leonhardt relies on false logic as well as

pathos to support his argument. He compares soft drinks to “risky teen behaviors” such as

2
underage drinking, drug use and promiscuous sex. In an attempt to get people wildly involved,

he continually provides the analogy that soft drinks are to diabetes what tobacco is to lung

cancer. Not only is his comparison vague, it is not supported by logic or statistics, which

completely diminishes his credibility. If he is referring to the number of deaths per year, tobacco-

related deaths account for approximately 5.4 million per year, while obesity-related deaths

(including diabetes and other pre-existing health conditions) total 112,000 per year. Smoking is a

negative accessory activity, one unrelated to drinking soda. He argues that alcohol is no less

threatening than a soda, a claim completely lacking in legitimacy, considering the extreme

addictive nature and sobriety-altering effects that alcohol holds. His argument is filled with

fallacies and otherwise unsupported claims such as these. He uses pathos in an attempt to elicit

genuine remorse for those without sufficient health care by stating “Most public health scourges

have a brutal way of holding down the associated medical cost: they kill people”. This fallacy

leads readers to believe that the lives of Americans are literally in the hands of these officials. In

reality, public health care is much more complex an issue than what he is describing. He attempts

to warrant that, as a direct result of the poor economic situation America is facing, soda would be

the single best candidate for a “sin tax”. Still, he defends this statement without support, and it

becomes completely irrelevant.

While each article represents opposing sides to the same argument, that is not what puts

ether article at an advantage. Kent’s faults remain almost entirely in his reputability. Considering

he is the CEO of Coca-Cola Company, most readers will undoubtedly let his bias affect their

interpretation of his article. While he makes outstanding points supported by unbiased health

organizations, most readers will not see through his implied opposing position to be able to

appreciate the validity in his statements. On the other hand, Leonhardt’s article utilizes Kairos

3
like Kent cannot. At this time, with the economy in the state that it is, people are desperate and in

need of health care. Three-cents more for a soda does not seem like a huge price to pay when, in

return, many Americans will start to receive public health care. He does emphasize on people’s

emotions with the warrant of a need for health care. Ultimately, the better article will have the

stronger argument. A superior argument is supported by strong facts, statistics, reputable

credibility, and is well executed. The inferior argument lacks prior knowledge, an established

reputation as a reporter or politician and lack of factual support. Clearly stated arguments that are

supported by data. While each argument does touch upon weak and strong areas, Kent’s

argument is supported by concrete information while Leonhardt rests comfortably on making

false claims that lack validity and thus render him illegitimate. His second approach to target the

reader’s soft side is too extreme to be justifiable.

Finally, the articles’ context and audience are factors in their arguments. The audience is

the general American public, however the context of these articles plays an enormous role,

especially when considering who is being persuaded and the political tendencies of each

publication. The Wall Street Journal, a more conservative newspaper has published Kent’s article

opposing an soda tax on the grounds its unethical and illogical. These ideas coming from an

article in a more “right-aimed” newspaper are not surprising. In contrast, the New York Times,

an extremely liberal publication has featured Leonhardt’s article supporting public health care, as

well as a tax that imposes on a citizens’ personal life and decisions. These sorts of socialist ideals

are relevant to a left-aimed newspaper. The ethos of each writer is unique. While Muhtar Kent

has a predisposed bias, considering his job could be jeopardized, he seems to have developed a

much more plausible argument. While David Leonhardt, a seasoned writer who has a career in

the field is unable to develop a supportable argument. One may think that, since the CEO of

4
Coca-Cola has contributed to an article discussing the soda tax debate, it would be filled with

outrageous claims stemming from complete disgust for the idea, when actually the opposite has

happened. The strongest argument emphasizes each rhetoric tool to fully develop a good

argument; however, the most effective rhetoric tool is logos, the logical. Because when it comes

down to what is right and wrong, which one may never know, it is impossible to ignore the

factual support of an argument.

“Coke Didn’t Make America Fat”-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455464120581696.html

“Sodas a Tempting Tax Target”-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/economy/20leonhardt.html?
_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255356399-Fuv0F6jD/ENeKJCrCn3rCw