Question

(1) Hillside Central School now plans to remove all soft drink and snack vending machines from the cafeteria. The cafeteria menu will also be changed to eliminate “junk food.” I believe this is an unnecessary and costly decision that limits students’ options and rights. (2) Those in favor of the proposal are motivated by health concerns, specifically high levels of obesity among students. It may be true that obesity is a serious problem, but banning foods is not the right way to address it. For example, a United States Department of Agriculture study points out that students get less than one third of their daily calories at school. They eat most of their food at home, where the ban does not apply. So it is unlikely the board’s action alone will reduce obesity. (3) Learning to make good choices and taking responsibility for our actions is an important part of education. The Hillside School Handbook says that on page 23. In keeping with that ideal, we should teach students more about nutrition so that they choose healthier meals. An across-the-board ban on certain foods suggests that students can’t make responsible decisions. The ban weakens personal responsibility. (4) How do you define “junk food”? Are cheeseburgers, chicken nuggets, and pizza really junk? They are if you read the fine print in the school board’s plan. According to the cafeteria staff, however, they notice these meals are far more popular among students than other entrees. If the school board plans to replace these meals with brown rice, carrot sticks, and raisins, no one will want to buy the meals. (5) The board’s decision has financial implications too. According to last year’s school budget, Hillside received over $15,000 from the owners of the vending machines. That money went directly toward the school’s academic program. So far, the board has not explained how the school will replace that money. What is the direct REBUTTAL the author uses to weaken the counter claim?Required to answer. Single choice.

Answer 1

I would say that the money from the Vending Machines that went to the academics is the rebuttal the author writes