Analysis of arguments in a piece of writing requires excellent knowledge of the different combinations of accounts present in the text. Such evaluations call for clear integration of facts derived from the different perspectives depicted by the characters in the text. For instance, Michael Pollan’s “Big Organic” from The Omnivore’s Dilemma presents numerous accounts of a phenomenon. The writer demonstrates excellent skills in the linkage of rhetorical devices. As a matter of fact, he is able to base the whole writing on first person perspective with aspects of disagreement with or against other minds. Fundamentally, an advanced understanding of a topic is required before one places a comment, Michael Pollan displays his understanding on organic foods to justify why he has the freedom of passing judgment as well as his basis of analysis of second and third party comments. To comprehensively justify Pollan’s account, it is necessary to explain his argument and how effective it is.
Additionally, the writer displays disagreement in his text in a very effective and descriptive manner. He disagrees with the general perspective of the government and other business minds on the meaning of organic. He believes that it is just a tag used to overshadow the production procedures of industrial food. Actually, in this situation, the writer tries to argue between two producers displaying the same perspective in their products and a consumer who doesn’t know which path to follow. He believes that consumers in an industrialized society follow the “organic” tag on industrial products without necessarily following the procedures that actually led to the availability of the products in the market. Contrary to this situation, farm products might have that inclination of true agriculture in them. As a matter of fact, the writer builds his argument by placing rhetorical tags at the path of the reader. For instance, the situation of having farms far from the market leaves consumers at the expense of loyalty from certification and licensing. Therefore, his main argument is that you wouldn’t know an organic food unless you can trace its production line back to the farm. Also, the writer disagrees with all perspectives of both parties and introduces his own thought of the phenomenon. On the other hand, he seconds those customers who question how “organic” the foods sold are. Hence, the writer is able to stand in the rift between two interrelated perspectives and efficiently create a conclusive idea acceptable to both.
