Brianna Albaugh

English 111: Paul Anderson

Assignment 1, Draft 1
September 20, 2015
Whats Cooking?
Gary Steiners New York Times essay entitled, Animal, Vegetable, Miserable surrounds
the idea that animals go through a life of pain and confinement just to be consumed later in life.
Steiner has a unique writing style that involves a creative mix between sarcasm, facts, and
personal experiences that he uses to make his argument stronger. The facts Steiner uses
throughout his essay gives the readers just a small glimpse of what the life of an animal raised
for human consumption really goes through. Turkeys and Chickens (the main animals that
Steiner uses through his piece) are brought to attention several times through facts and stories.
Although he uses many of his own examples and personal experiences in his essay, he is
ultimately ineffective in conveying his argument to the meat-eating society due to his use of
dictation and tone, logos, and organization.
Think about that when youre picking out your free-range Turkey, which has absolutely
nothing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving. All it ever had was a short and miserable life, thanks
to us intelligent, compassionate humans (Steiner Pg. 7). Steiner uses sarcasm in many points of
his essay in order to make his argument stronger and create more sympathy for the animals.
Though his intentions are to support his argument better, the sarcasm comes off as almost
insulting to the ones that think differently. He describes the audience as being blissfully
ignorant to what is actually happening which strikes a nerve and makes the emotion toward
Steiner negative. Steiners essay is directed towards the select group that believes that animal

consumption is perfectly normal, but his word choice makes him generalize all meat-eaters into a
group where they believe they are more superior to the animal they are eating. Not all meateaters believe they are more superior to animals, because of his stereotyping and categorizing it
damages his argument. Steiners additional use of logos made his piece even more unsuccessful
at persuading his target audience.
Anyone can spew out facts to persuade an audience to think a certain way, but that does
not mean they are true. And how can people continue to eat meat when they become aware that
nearly 53 billion land animals are slaughtered every year for human consumption? (6). When a
reader finally gets to this fact in Steiners article it makes them want to stop reading and really
contemplate on that statistic. Steiner has no problem expelling facts throughout his essay, but he
also relies solely on emotion to get his point across to his audience but has no solid proof to
actually back up his claims. Chickens may be labeled free-range even if theyve never been
outside or seen a speck of daylight in their entire lives (6). I could just as easily say, According
to labeling laws set forth by the USDA in order to be labeled free-range they have to have
access to the outside. Claiming that those are labeling laws without any proof or evidence to
stand behind it makes it only an assertion. This therefore means Steiners fact was not a fact at
all, but rather a misguided opinion. The fact weakens his article since there is no evidence
standing behind it; Steiner relies solely on the shock factor of this statement. Organization is yet
another category where Steiner fails to capture his audience.
Chickens and Turkeys, the two animals that Steiner repeats throughout his piece are yet
another downfall to his argument. They lead to a sloppy organization that makes the essay almost
difficult to centralize. He talks about how inhumane animal consumption is, gives some facts on
the amount of livestock killed every year, touches on his vegan lifestyle, and then bounces back

to the animal's feelings and treatments. He mentions the fact that meat-eaters think they are more
superior and keeping animals in captivity for the zoo and circus is wrong, yet he owns a pet cat
which is very hypocritical considering his whole paper is about how animals are mistreated.
Steiner owns a cat, does this mean he lets his cat run rampant around the house instead of
teaching it what to do and what not to do? If he does not let his cat run all over and taught it right
from wrong he must realize that he holds some superiority over his furry companion. The way he
worded his essay makes it seem like it is bouncing off the walls going from one subject to the
next without giving the audience enough time to process what it really is in front of them. It is
clear from the beginning of Steiners essay what he is talking about but his use of examples,
facts, and stories make the organization seem unclear.
Steiner comes up with many points that ultimately strengthen his argument but he does
not use any logic or statistics to back up his claims. His use of stereotyping and sarcasm may
encourage readers to develop a strong negative emotion towards him, making him less likely to
persuade his audience in the way that he initially intended to. The reader could even not take him
seriously, even though he has a Ph.D from Yale, because his claims are not backed up with
credible sources. His organization is not consistent and could make the reader uninterested with
what he has to say. Steiner, with the use of insults, sarcasm, and stereotyping, proved to be
ineffective at changing the mind of his audience. Rather than target the audience with a more
convincing and factual tone his choice to insult the meat-eating community sparked a flame for a
fire of hatred. Furthermore, due to Steiners dictation and tone, logos, and organization he could
have hurt his chances of ever persuading the meat eating community to change their minds.

Work Cited

Steiner, Gary. Animal, Vegetable, Miserable. .Exploring Relationships: Globalization and

Learning in the 21st Century. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 5-7 Print.