Big Fat Tax Analysis

In the article “Big fat tax is no gut buster” author Susie O’brien attacking the new tax on the fast food industry. By the opening slogan, “DON’T tax the big mac” she asserts her position on the tax. Written in bold the slogan immediately catches the eye and as it cleverly rhymes is very memorable. The author continues in cementing her standing on the issue by saying that a junk food tax is not the answer and the rhetorical question that, “why should reducing our weight start with our wallets? Her target audience with this piece would be those for the tax as she argues that there are downsides to a tax on fast food as well as alternatives that could be better. The image plastered in the centre of the article shows a man made of fast food. It relates to the subject of the article yet despite the amount of greasy fast food also seems appetising. The author also states that she is definitely for helping overweight Australians however that a fat tax is not the answer.
We see colloquial language which creates a feeling of comfortability with the author when she states a fat tax is such a, “one-pronged solution” whilst also dismissing the idea as small-minded. The tone she has written in persuades readers to agree as she says, “it (government) can remove every damned junk food vending machines from gyms, sport club houses and schools. ” The power in which the author says this makes her statement a real rallying point as if she is part of a protest.
Whilst loaded language like “damned” and the rhetorical/loaded question of “why do so many parents reward kids for playing sport with a packet of chips? ” This sentence gives readers who do this a sense of guilt whilst those who don’t may find it amusing. She then goes on to give the audience someone else to blame for their fat with the rhetorical question of, “Why not start by cracking down on irresponsible food labelling? She continues on with fact and research as she states that all our foods are, “choc-full of toxic ingredients like saturated fats, trans fats, palm oil and high-fructose corn syrup, which is one of the leading sweeteners in food, but is very hard for the body to effectively break down. ” This makes the author seem knowledgeable on the subjects which can persuade readers into trusting her as she clearly knows what she’s talking about. The author gives many alternatives to a fat tax which seem simple to impose as well as logical to reducing obesity rates.

The author proposes ideas such as setting up safer pedestrian walkways so that people (especially kids) may walk to places such as the local shops/schools. Inside these alternative solutions she can now turn it back on the fat tax by using loaded sentences such as, “Why does every social solution seem to involve taking money out of my pocket and putting it into Treasury? ” as well as, “In short, if it (the government) wanted to, it could stop this problem in its tracks. But instead it’s being told merely to increase taxes.
Talk about punishing the victim. ” The author befriends her audience and makes it seem like she’s one of us/on our side so that it persuades readers to come round to her view. Her use of rhetorical questions makes readers come to assumptions that she wants them to. Whilst also giving them someone to blame in the government alluding that they are simply out for out money. Her powerful final sentence, “So let’s forget fads like tax on fast food, that will just make takeaways more expensive and will do nothing to change the way people live their lives.
Let’s do more to change every single day to make life healthier for everyone. ” leaves readers with a sense of duty and that the author’s aim is simply to help us, the people persuading us to be against the fat tax. Susie O’brien uses rhetorical questions and loaded language to coax readers into making assumptions about the government and the fat tax. Clever slogans and imagery helps her arguments be memorable as well as logical. She creates someone to blame as well as alternative solutions which makes a fat tax seem small-minded. This persuades readers to agree with her postion.