Coffee Rhetorical Analysis

The healthiness of coffee has been a topic of debate for many years. Being one of the most common drinks in the world, people have argued all sorts of positions in regards to its benefits or detriments to their health. Kris Gunnars’ article, “13 Health Benefits of Coffee, Based on Science” argues that coffee is indeed healthy, and provides thirteen reasons why. Jim Dillan’s article, “7 Negative Effects of Coffee & The Healthy Drink You Should Replace it With,” argues the opposite, claiming that coffee is overall harmful to the human body. Although coffee has both positive and negative side effects, Gunners’ article is much more informative, due to its abundance of citations, its large number of well-developed points, and the fact that the article remains consistent with its title. Gunnars’ article is very well supported. A citation is provided for every single claim he makes. The article itself has a stunning total of fifty-seven citations, each to a reliable source such as a
medical journal. This contrasts with Dillan’s article, which provides zero citations. Rather than citing his claims, Dillan provides numerous links to other articles from the same website. After he makes a claim such as, “Ulcers are believed to be caused by the Helicobacter pylori bacteria. However, the acidic effect coffee has on the stomach may contribute to providing the weakened stomach lining necessary for H. pylori to take hold initially,” (Dillan), rather than providing a source such as a study on the effects of H. pylori, he leaves his readers to solely assume his words as truth. A truly informative article would provide such sources for the reader to get more information on the topic if he or she pleases, which is one of the main reasons why I believe Gunnars’ article is more so. Another reason that makes Gunnars’ article more informative is that he provides almost twice as many points of evidence, where each one is generally more developed than one of Dillan’s points. In Gunnars’ claims such as “After you drink coffee, the caffeine is absorbed into the bloodstream. From there, it travels into the brain. In the brain, caffeine blocks an inhibitory neurotransmitter called Adenosine. When that happens, the amount of other neurotransmitters like norepinephrine and dopamine actually increases, leading to enhanced firing of neurons,” (Gunnars), it is evident that science is directly and explicitly used to back them up. Compared to Dillan’s claims, such as, “Drinking coffee can also irritate the lining of the small intestine, potentially leading to abdominal spasms, cramps and elimination problems, often alternating between constipation and diarrhea. This condition is known as irritable bowel syndrome and more and more people are being diagnosed with it in recent years,” (Dillan), it is clear that his points are not supported nearly as well as Gunnars’. Up against the sheer number and strength of Gunnars’ evidence, plus the aforementioned multitude of citations for said evidence, Dillan’s article does not hold up. In addition to its lack of citations and support, Dillan’s article also does not remain true to its title.
The title claims that it will provide the reader with “The Healthy Drink You Should Replace [coffee] With.” At no point in the article is this done. Instead, Dillan provides a link to another article, once again to the same website, titled “3 Steps to Substitute Coffee and Effective Caffeine Withdrawal.” This makes it apparent that the author does not have an interest in truly providing the reader with the information contained in his article, and instead is more concerned with the hits to the website that he works for in an effort to make more ad revenue. An informative article should contain at the very least what is in the title. Instead, Dillan’s article skips an entire half of its own title, unlike Gunnars’ which provides exactly what it claims – health benefits of coffee based on science. This is another reason why Gunnars’ article is significantly more informative than
Dillan’s. Jim Dillan’s article is lacking in citations, support, and information that it claimed to provide. The reader is left to assume his words as truth, with nothing to back them up except the name of the website it is posted on. This is not characteristic of an informative article, and Kris Gunnars does a much better job with his. He provides a great number of quality citations, explains the science behind his claims thoroughly, and gives the reader exactly what he or she would expect. For these reasons, Gunnars’ article is much more informative.