Food advertising should be banned the same as smoking is
Some researchers contend that the habit of eating too much will pose a threat to peoples' health and thus, suggest that food commercials should be banned the same way as cigarettes are. This essay will disagree with the latter view, and justifications are as follows.
To commence with, advertisements on food should not be prohibited entirely since not all food is detrimental to peoples' health. In fact, fruits and grain-based products are considered healthy food, so it seems rather unresonable to not permit their advertisements to be broadcast on mass media. On the contrary, there is no variation in terms of healthy and unhealthy in cigarette brands, and it should be blocked from citizens' view as a way to lessen the likelihood of having health problems amongst them.
Another factor that can not be overlooked is the economy. On the one hand, it is conspicuous that the food industry has an enormous impact on a nation's economic growth. Therefore, if the sales went down due to the prohibition policy, the country would have to suffer a huge loss. On the other hand, cigarette manufacturing does not contribute to the economy that much as the food industry does, so if there is a decline in sales, the loss will be less severe.
In conclusion, based on aforemention explainations, I suggest that it is not a good idea to ban food advertisements the same way as cigarettes one are.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 15461 It would have been nice if you could have used alternate terms for "researchers" since it is still close enough to the original term used (research). By using alternate words such as analysts or food scientists, you would have shown a wider and related vocabulary to the examiner, thus boosting your LR score at the very start. The prompt restatement is a bit short on the interpretation side as it does not indicate that over eating and smoking are similarly seen in terms of cause and effect. Without that link, the mention of banning certain food advertisement does not have a basis. It creates a questionable reference in the eyes of the reader. The essay cannot have an opinion because it is a mere product of the act of writing. The main questions was pointed to the writer. Do YOU agree or disagree? Therefore, a personal pronoun reference should be used in response to the given inquiry. The prompt restatement + writer's opinion is badly developed and will not receive a good preliminary score.
The reasoning paragraphs are not developed along the key discussion line which is "addiction". Overeating was no longer the focus of the discussion in relation to food addiction and the need to ban certain food types, such as junk food, in advertising. Yes, the health benefits should be considered, but you have obviously misunderstood the actual discussion chain which is:
Junk food ---> Habit forming ---> Overeating ---> Food addiction ---> Health problems
Cigarettes ---> Habit forming ---> Chain Smoking ---> Smoking addiction ---> Health problems
Solution: Ban advertising to dissuade people from falling into these 2 bad health habits
Consider: Yes or no? Why? Use health reasons that relate to both junk food and cigarettes
The focus is on health, the economy does not figure in any way towards the discussion targets. A commonality that would create connected discussion considerations for a cohesive presentation is not found in the 2 paragraphs. The way the discussion considerations were not correctly addressed in this essay shows that the writer did not properly outline his thought process and possible discussion topics, as the above example shows. This is why he failed to consider the correct discussion format and discussion targets for his reasoning paragraphs. The discussion is therefore, incorrect.
The concluding summary does not offer a proper summative discussion within the 2 sentence word format. It does not allow for a proper recapitulation of the preceding discussion. Therefore, full scoring consideration for this portion cannot be provided either.
