In 2010, Robert Paarlberg wrote an essay, 'Attention Whole Food Shoppers,' for
'Foreign Policy' magazine. In this essay, Paarlberg discusses the 'real food crisis we face'
(Paarlberg 147) and how we can escape it. In his argument, he expresses the benefits of our
'modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system' (Paarlberg 148), and how
this system can be used to save foreign countries that suffer from poverty and hunger ' the 'real
food crisis' (Paarlberg 147). Robert Paarlberg's essay is successful, not only because it is very
well written, but also, because he displays brilliant use of rhetorical proof functions ' logos,
ethos, and pathos.

Paarlberg uses logos to appeal to the reader's logical reasoning by creating a direction for
reasoning. In Paarlberg's essay he utilizes deductive reasoning ' going from a general case or
idea to specific instances. Paarlberg uses deductive reasoning in each of his sections, as well as,
using this direction throughout all sections. Throughout the essay, the sections becoming more
specific and concrete, and ultimately builds onto one another in efforts to reach the single idea
that he is arguing. For instance, the first section introduces the broad idea that hunger is a
symptom of inefficient farming, and the second section builds on the first and shows us specific
achievements from introducing 'high'yielding wheat and rice seeds into poor countries'
(Paarlberg 148). The third section continues with this pattern and proves that organic field crops
are not as efficient and safe, for people ' especially in impoverish countries ' and the
environment, as modern conventional farming. Lastly, the final section builds on all of those
from before and concludes with Paarlberg's single idea that he is wanting to argue ' Africa's
growing hunger can only be eliminated, in the long run, by governments in rich countries
deciding to 'support steady new infusion of financial and technical assistance to help local
governments and farmers become more productive' (Paarlberg 152).

Furthermore, Paarlberg uses logos to define classes relevant to his argument. For
example, he brings up different ideas in each section that, again, build onto each other to point
his reader to his specific class ' idea that he wants to persuade. He uses relevant classes such as
organic farming, which he defines as 'well intentioned' [Though] often misinformed and
counterproductive' (Paarlberg 149). He does this to indicate that his audience, those who eat
organic and believe that is best, that they are not wrong to want to eat safely, but they should
gain more information on the matter. He also defines classes such as 'modern, science-intensive,
and highly capitalized agricultural system' (Paarlberg 148), in addition to scientifically altered
high-yielding seeds, as a very efficient and beneficial to farming. This helps the reader see the
good in our modern day food productions and see what he believes in as the best choice. Lastly,
he incorporates the class of food aid by defining it as only a short-term solution to the problem of
hunger. This gives the reader the point of view that food aid is inefficient and that we need a
long-term solution.

One can also observe logos in order to discover the types of reasoning someone utilizes
in their argument. For example, Paarlberg uses each of the four types of reasoning ' scientific,
rhetorical, dialectical, and false reasoning ' in his essay. He leads with rhetorical reasoning,
draws on premises that are based in a community's belief, as he begins with the statement that
'we want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change ' and childhood obesity,
too. But though it's certainly a good thing to be thinking about global welfare' the hope that we
can help others by changing our shopping and eating habits is being wildly oversold to Western
consumers' (Paarlberg 147). He draws the audience in on the community belief of helping others
in order to tell us that we are not helping in the way that we are needed. In addition, throughout
the essay he often combines scientific and dialectical reasoning. For instance, he includes an
example of scientific reasoning, 'The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last year published
a study of 162 scientific papers from the past 50 years on the health benefits of organically
grown foods and found no nutritional advantage over conventionally grown food' (Paarlberg
150), just before stating dialectical reasoning, 'health professionals also reject the claim that
organic food is safer to eat due to lower pesticide residues' (Paarlberg 150). Examples of false
reasoning are, also, identifiable in this essay; such as, 'it turns out that food prices on the world
market tell us very little about global hunger' (Paarlberg 147), and 'not only is organic farming
less friendly to the environment than assumed, but modern conventional farming is becoming
significantly more sustainable' (Paarlberg 150).

In addition to logos, Robert Paarlberg uses ethos in making his argument successful. One
way he does this is by drawing on his situated ethos, which is intrinsic to the rhetorical situation
and by large controlled by the audience. The readers view Paarlberg, based on the rhetorical
situation, as a writer for 'Foreign Policy' magazine, therefore, he is most likely reliable and
knowledgeable regarding his topic. He draws on this by being reliable and knowledgeable of his
topic and giving the reader many facts and evidence behind his argument; for example, he states,
'India's rural poverty rate fell from 60 percent to just 27 percent today' (Paarlberg 149), and 'an
estimated 700,000 people [in Africa] die every year from food- and water-borne diseases'
(Paarlberg 148). This makes him appear knowledgeable; therefore, the readers can trust his
information.

Lastly, Paarlberg takes steps to establish a strong invented ethos. This emphasizes the
useful, downplays the counterproductive, and fills in the gaps from situated ethos to show good
virtue. Much like I said earlier, Paarlberg emphasizes and displays his knowledge on his topic
throughout his essay. He also, downplays the counterproductive. For example, being in 'Foreign
Policy' magazine, many may think that Paarlberg may be bias slightly, but he downplays this by
having little to no bias or political stance other than wanting to increase foreign financial and
technical assistance, therefore, readers can not discard his argument by saying that he is bias. He
also fills in the gaps from situated ethos to show us good virtue by adding things like 'we want
to save the planet' (Paarlberg 147) and 'if we are going to get serious about solving global
hunger' ' to show his morals; that he wants the best for people which is basically what every
human with morals want. He does this to come across trustworthy so that the reader will be
willing to hear his argument.

In addition to logos and ethos, Robert Paarlberg utilizes pathos to arouse emotion in his
audience. One can even see how he responds to the audience's emotions, desires, and concerns.
Although he does not utilize enargeia, a visually powerful description that vividly recreates
something or someone in words, he responds to the audience's emotions when he gives the other
side of being for organic ' 'modern eco-foodies are full of good intentions' (Paarlberg 150) '
therefore, those who are organic will not get angry because he recognizes that they have good
intentions. He responds to the audiences compassion and desire to help other ' 'poverty ' caused
by the low-income productivity of farmers' labor ' is the primary source of hunger in
Africa' [and] what's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the
problem' (Paarlberg 148). Lastly, he responds to the audience's concerns; for example, he
responds to the probable concern of cost by stating, 'the dollar value of the U.S. food aid to
Africa has reached 20 times the dollar value of agricultural development assistance' (Paarlberg
152).

Moreover, one can see what emotions Robert Paarlberg seems to expect the audience to
possess with regards to his issue. In addition to Paarlberg expecting compassion towards the
hungry, Paarlberg seems to expect the audiences to have guilt and shame as he says, 'we too
quickly conclude that the crisis is over. Yet 850 million people in poor countries were
chronically undernourished before the 2008 price spike' (Paarlberg 147), and then soon after
leads them to discovering something that they can do about this problem and rid them of this
guilt by helping. Also, Paarlberg expect fear as he says, 'excess nitrogen fertilizer use on
conventional farms in the United States has polluted rivers and created a 'dead zone' in the Gulf
of Mexico' (Paarlberg 150), and his expectancy of this is clear because just after he states, 'but
halting synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use entirely' would cause environmental problems far
worse' much of the lower 48 states would need to be converted to pasture [to produce enough
manure to fertilize crops]' (Paarlberg 150) which makes the audience understand why nitrogen
fertilizer is necessary.

To conclude, in his essay, 'Attention Whole Food Shoppers,' Robert Paarlberg skillfully
utilizes the three rhetorical proof functions ' logos, ethos, and pathos ' and, because of this,
creates a successful argument. This resulted in having the audience believe and listen into his
argument on the benefits of 'modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural
system we've developed in the West' (Paarlberg 148), and how this system can be used to save
foreign countries that suffer from poverty and hunger ' the 'real food crisis' (Paarlberg 147),
and bringing them to his conclusion of wanting to make a change and 'support a steady new
infusion of financial and technical assistance to help local governments and farmers become
more productive' (Paarlberg 152), which is Paarlberg's overall goal.
