The debate as to the superiority of organic food over chemically influenced food appears frequently in today's world and its fast-food mindset. Many question the logistics of whether or not it truly is healthier, cheaper, and overall better to produce food utilizing pesticides and chemicals as opposed to relying on Mother Nature's natural processes. Some fight to say that organic foods are far superior and help people maintain a healthier lifestyle while others say that non-organic food may not only be better but also far more nutritious and easier to grow. In an essay written by a college student in Iowa, the nature of these foods is put into question, favoring a side towards the non-organic foods. Through [author's name] use of language, data, and structure, he or she manages to portray a fairly well crafted argument on why one should not fear non-organic food, relying primarily on logos.

Because the paper was written by a student, the language of the paper consists of a colloquial tone that appeals to the reader's ethos (in the sense that the readers will most likely be other college students, whom will better relate to another student's words rather than an unheard of professor). The language also holds a basic, to-the-point sentence attitude, making it very pleasant and effortless to read through. This helps make the data as easy to comprehend as it can be, making the logos shine through much more clearly and robustly. The structure also stands to be easy to read, as there are few paragraphs and mostly pieces and bits of sentences, similar to an article in a paper. Out of context, a person could almost be seen presenting this argument to a good friend in just how friendly and lighthearted the text feels. In a sort of compound effect, the writer also tries a few attempts at humor, writing, ""Normal" foods are healthy, nutritious and safe just as they are, which makes organic foods an unnecessary product choice. This is good news for many college students because they are also budget busters and we all know that none of us have the money for that," (Bahl). The humor can be seen targeting college students, and it is only used once or twice in the paper, again maintaining a mostly formal yet still jovial tone. In this regard, the argument being made is supported by the cordial nature and simplicity in its presentation. Ok, so this paragraph is interesting, but needs to be connected more explicitly to logos, which you say in your thesis that you will focus on. 

With statistics from a reliable source such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), it manages to make a convincing argument against organic foods. Some usage of pathos is seen through the healthiness or the "morality" of organic foods, but this is only a topic that it merely touches upon for a brief moment. For the most part, it discusses the very process in which farmers have to go through -- from the USDA -- in order to grow organic food itself. Seeing the setup of the process proves how difficult it is to grow the food, therefore it is much more expensive. It also discusses pesticides, the opinions of experts in the field, and more, all to focus a strong point to anyone opposed to non-organic foods. In addition, it mentions how the label of "organically made" has been manipulated throughout the industry and that a label regarding organic foods, "give[s] no indication of food safety or nutrition," (Bahl). However, it does not put forth convincing evidence or data to prove the fundamental point as to whether or not organic food is at all better than non-organic food. It makes points and statements, yet it does not provide any key sources for this. Logos remains prominent, yet it may not hold as strong a punch as it would otherwise. It does quote a professor; however he or she appears to be from the same university that the student author is from, showing a lack in diversity in opinions, hence putting some question into ethos in the form of bias. In the end, the data helps uphold the fundamental ideas behind this essay's purpose, however it feels a bit lackluster and could use more in order to truly enhance its points.

Finally, there is the matter of its layout. The article flows from discussing the USDA to the organic label to the farming process itself. For the reader, this may provide a "detective" mindset; in other words, the writer questions where the issue might arise and goes from there (the USDA) and moves slowly down in structure in order to dig up the issue itself. With this mindset, the essay would be fitting for a college student, many of whom care little for the nutritional value of organic foods and more for the pricing of foods themselves. The essay, combining invented ethos and logos, gives college students a fairly simple yet satisfying view into the world of organic vs. non-organic, since most would not want to do a significant amount of research yet still may be curious to understand the differences in the two. Transition into quote here with something like "As the author states,  ... ""The pesticide residue found on non-organic foods is so low that consumers are taking in less than 5 percent of the Acceptable Dietary Intake," (Bahl). Pathos is utilized, again somewhat in conjunction with ethos, with an appeal to the fears that people may have over the pesticide on non-organic food, and to give a wise, warm sensation in making them feel confident that what they are being told is fact, despite how few sources it provides. The essay's main argument comes off as genuine and strong, yet it begins to have flaws once one questions its sources and where it got the key information that it gives. It does give strong points, but it gives such few sources that it is increasingly questionable as to whether those sources are bias or even flawed themselves.

In conclusion, the essay relies on language, data, and structure to propose that neither organic nor non-organic food has significantly more nutrition or health benefits than the other, utilizing logic and reason in order to prove its point. Although it does hold some ground, in the grand scheme of it all, the essay lacks any backbone to an otherwise decent argument. It feels warm and holds some weight, yet it lacks a plethora of sources or at least far more powerful sources. It attempts to make it up through a more hearty spirit and cheerful perspective, along with some attempts for a quick chuckle, yet it feels to fall apart, at least to a certain extent. For the common college student, it will probably prove strong, but for anyone who is better aware of the subject matter, they will most likely not completely concur with the article's center statements and question its legitimacy.

