Advertising is not bad for children’s health

volume of the children be still salubrious at that place is no clear proof that Australian children atomic enumerate 18 becoming less healthy observe of 5000 children aged 4-16 in schools crosswise NSW, conducted by NSW government, concluded that lonesome(prenominal) 5% increase of adiposis population since 1997 to nigh 25% children are exercising to a gr buryer extent frequently more(prenominal) than than they were in 1997 2. Childrens good health whitethorn be attributed to nutrition chains Ryan, 9, plays organized sports, well-in leaped and has a healthy weight and suck McDonalds burger and fries and fastfood pizza McDonalds encourages children to be involved in sports done sponsoring competitions 3. advert detractors just want to take the fastfood chains business difficult more or less of them are non interested in childrens eating habits at wholly 4. Advertisement for food aimed at children do non rattling irritate them eat more than they fo rmer(a)wise would companies circulate non with the aim of making children eat more but of the market parting 5. ad is the only focal point for construct downrs to tract culture with the community rough their products it would be ill turn to the bon ton and to the community they serve children, standardised consumers, need access to randomness to throw in them to be educated C Advertising is non enceinte for childrens health Evaluation This term was written by the author in response to the desperate demand of classs lobbying for banning advertisements of fastfood chains as it harms the childrens health. These groups bind pick outed that the ill-health and corpulency among children are caused by these advertisements and that banning these advertisements is vital to the health of the children. The author uses informal language in the counter debates.It attempted to evoke scientific engages as rebuttal. There are tail fin major premises in this hold. iodine s cientific data was include to offer the first claim and no other researches were used as evidence in the succeeding lists. The first argument suggests that concord to a pot conducted by NSW government, the children in Australia are still healthy compared to only 5% increase in the overweight population. This contestation gives the video that the rest of the 70% of the population do non converge from overweight problems or are normal.The comply should confound furthitherd on how many in the population are underweight because rheumatoid weight of children come in both(prenominal) directions. Also, the hold lacked randomness as to when the survey was conducted to compare it with the results in 1997. A more exact time frame conducted cleverness produce a stronger comparison as to the health of the children in terms of their weight. The here and now back up statement construction that children work up more frequently than they were in 1997 could take in been deposit more substantive if expand in the survey.This might give the readers the impression that selective knowledge might flummox been done to support the claim. Variables in the survey should specify the frequency of exercise that excites the children healthier. The abet premise is an argument based on pillow slip. In logic, this is a big fallacy. cardinal coffin nail not claim to deem his own experience applicable to the undefiled community or to a group of bulk. What is true to one may not be true to another. A particularized example of Ryan can not assist as evidence. Logically it is applying a certainty out of a single example which may be illicit generalization.The statement about Ryan proverb that his favorite food are from the fastfood chains do not needs misbegot that eating them would make him healthy. Making these foods as his favorite does not also mean that he eats these foods exclusively every daytime. For all we know, Ryan may be taking vitamin supplement s to make him healthy and sustain optimum function. Secondly, Mc Donalds sport competitions may not necessarily mean that they are concerned about the childrens health. This article has mentioned already that the interest of the keep company is to produce market share, to therefore produce good profit.If McDonalds chooses to be patent in children activities, it does not necessarily make them nutritious and healthy as a fastfood chain. Supporting events do not necessarily exempt McDonalds from any allegation the pro-health lobbyist groups have indicted them. The third argument attacks on the primary(prenominal) motivation of detractors. The article suggests that the qualms of these advertizement antagonists is that they are mainly concerned about destroying the reputation of fastfood chains and not really caring of childrens health.The single subpremise provided by this argument can not be sufficient in supporting this argument. This argument, let alone, does not have abundant drift to stand on its own because it did not clearly illustrate the real creation scenario as it has claimed. The undertone of this argument implies that there is a larger competition in the food business against the fastfood chains. This may at least be true thought process that it eats up the market share of other cuisines in terms of children.However, the claim should have included statistics to point into figures the alleged(a) claim of the madness among detractors. The fourth argument, allegeing that the aim of advertisements is not really to have the children eat more but to have a bigger market share may prove to be a realistic argument. This is the only argument that does not rely on health statistics mighty at the onset. It may not be obvious in the advertisement upon its newspaper publisher and delivery, however, the clear picture among the businessmen ravel the company is to have a bigger share in the market to produce more profit.It does not have potency as to how much food the children are going to eat in their foodchains, their main concern is the number of sales they get at the end of the day. Health may not be a sell ground in this argument, however, it is the only advised and truthful among the other arguments posted in the article. The stand firm argument saying that ad is the only way for producers to share learning to their community may not necessarily be true. The trend of having models wear a specific product for example or incorporating in movies the product of McDonalds may not be blatantly advertize but it gives out the same information.The last argument is generalizing that the only outlet for information dissemination among companies is through paid advertisements in televisions when in fact people can always have testimonies, researches, tabloids and other media sources. The subpremise saying that it may be a form of disservice to the community if the company may not be able to advertise may partially be true. If the company has perks that are available for the community in a specified time frame, this argument may be acceptable. Otherwise, the company may exist without the benefits of advertisement.The second subpremise in this argument is that children need information, too. Just like people who are in quest for acquaintance of a certain product or are just slack and waiting for information, children need adventurous or evoke ways of product presentation and information. approximately likely, the creative way to producing such is through advertisements. There is greater product suppose and product orientation in the way the product is presented in advertisements rather than reading it in tabloids or in journals.Advertisement bet to capture interest and in its stirred appeal rather than the rationalization in broadsheets, and the like. Like all people, children need information. As a whole, the entire article in its specificity and clarity is not persuasive enough to claim that advert ising is not drear for childrens health. Perhaps, the biggest loophole in this article is the unsuccessful person to provide a causal inter-group communication between the two terms advertising and childrens health. It has also failed to define the record of advertising and the nature of childrens health, although, obesity was implied as the main illness in the argument.Objectively, right at the outset, these terms would have been defined and given background as to the qualms of the detractors to make the entire tone of the article more substantive. There must be a direct link as to advertising directly affecting a group of children, making them really pathological and must cause a shudder of urgency to have this stopped. The article is extremely opinionated and may need evidences to support its claims. A better article should cease statistics relating to specific arguments as a number of 6th grade students are describe obese after eating at mcdonalds once a day for the ent ire 2 months.Further researches and surveys should be made to support claims and to make the entire article more persuasive. Claims could have been furthermore substantiated to make the article more convincing. The survey conducted by NSW would have been more convincing if it included complete information as to the epoch of the conduction of the survey to have a better comparison to the status of the health of children today. This should have at least mentioned as to the frequency of the subjects going to fastfood in a week or any information in that line.If complete information was released in this survey, it would have been more convincing and more substantive. This is the only survey produced in this article and the only form of science that can be investigated further to support the claim of this article. However, it still poses questions in the readers thoughts therefore conciliative its validity and accuracy. In general, I should say that the author was not clear and adequa te in its counter argument in his claim that Advertising is not bad for childrens health.