So this is Lewis giving the business side of things and how this can make people money by getting involved in reducing food waste. Throughout the entire article he finds ways to shed different types of light almost like pros and cons of this topic.

Lewis also relates the issue he is speaking on to other big issues that are affecting the world and makes connections. This is because these two thing are hurting the world. He is trying to not only pull people in thats interested in food waste but also about climate change and how it is affecting us and our environment.

Throughout this article Lewis, he makes very valid points and he has been backing them up with evidence he is trying to inform us of how much food we waste In only one part of the world and there is so more places and we waste so much food just because which is terrible.

Here, Dave Lewis hooks his audience by relating the issue he wants to discuss to a well-known subject. Based on the article commentary above, I can assume that Lewis is aware that his argument comes with a lot of counterarguments. Therefore, using this hook to exaggerate the issue head on is very persuasive.

This is very persuasive as it shows that there is no excuse as to why there is so much food going to waste when there are plenty of mouths that need to be fed. In addition, Lewis is very clear in his argument. Specifically, he states "The case for action becomes even stronger". This makes it clear that he wants his audience to take action.

Lewis includes statistics which are very important when you are looking to persuade an audience. Data makes it clear to the reader/ listener that you aren't just voicing your opinion or sharing your ideas. In fact, it makes the claim more concrete as a whole.

Again, Lewis is trying to find loopholes to grab his audience's attention. He uses the word "opportunity" which usually carries a positive connotation. When talking about food waste, a lot of people ignore the issue because they believe that they'll always be more. Therefore, Lewis is kind of throwing an incentive in there to even out the negatives.

Lewis is using primary sources (report) to prove that his incentive is beneficial. He also uses statistics and data to present the profit that has been made by businesses that have already invested in food waste issues. This is like a "why not get these same benefits?"

Lewis' audience is the CEOs. I can infer that he is targeting CEOs because they have the most power over the businesses that he wants to get involved.

Yet again Lewis is clearly stating his intentions with this report. This shows a sense of honesty.

By mentioning his past successes, Lewis creates more credibility for himself. In other words, he is making it clear that his proposal is effective.

There is a big but here. To me, this sentence can be taken one of two ways: 1. there really hasn't been much progress made with all of this food still going to waste or 2. that leaves more room for more businesses to get involved and make the efforts more effective. Lewis could've added a sentence that called his audience to action.

Lewis shows that he is open to flexibility when it comes to his plan. This can be both good and bad as some may see this as a weakness and try to take advantage.

This is the use of demonstration of irrelevance. Lewis showcases that the lack of morality doesn't meet the criteria of relevance that defines the issue. In other words, he is saying that even if we don't feel the need to take action based on our morals, there are plenty other calls for action.

All throughout the article, I noticed that Lewis constantly uses the word "we". This is important because Lewis is making his audience feel included.

Although Lewis is still making his argument, he maintains an ambitious attitude to make sure that his audience stays attentive.

This is how we are able to keep food frozen and it not go bad but after a while it does become freer burnt. Its proven fact that fresh food in plastic packaging makes food last longer and stay fresh which also would help prevent the wasting of food.

This was exactly what I was saying in one of my comments. Manoj is giving us facts on this situations and trying to sheds light on the fact that all plastic in the food industry is bad because it is more needed for things like fresh food. I like How she gives different views and not just in one certain place or state but globally

Looking from how this very first paragraph starts off the Manoj was trying to inform us of how bad plastic has been infecting our world and trying to get us to understand the that not all plastic is bad we need to learn how to properly dispose of our plastic waste and she is speaking to everyone that uses plastic that is her audience.

The authors use an example in order to showcase the effectiveness of plastic film when it comes to shelf life. In addition, data is used to show direct results. 3 days-14 days is a huge shift especially when it comes to fresh foods. This gives people more time to consume instead of the food going bad and going to waste.

The authors use data to present the huge size of the issue. This puts emphasis on the effort that will be needed to resolve the issue. In other words, this is a call for action.

Here the authors use strategic concession as a way to weaken the opposing arguments. In other words, the authors acknowledged some of the merits of a different view while rejecting other parts of it. In addition, the authors introduce background of their argument. Specifically, they mention how some plastic is used to protect the valuable resources we consume.

From the jump, Manoj Dora and Eleni Iacovidou mention the counterargument to the claim they plan to pursue. This is a good strategy as they are tackling their "competition" head on. This will leave more room to persuade the audience into taking efforts in their favor. In addition, starting off in this manner is an effective way to hook their intended audience.

Not only is reading and writing required for jobs, but I also think it's a skill that should be accessible to everyone simply because you use reading and writing every day. I think it's a skill as important as knowing how to cook for yourself.

Yes, reading is just as creative, because even though we're reading the same words, we readers can be imagine different worlds based on the same words in our head.

I can agree with this because when I was homeschooled, we never learned anything about annotations. All we did in English was learn about grammar and write papers. I think there should be a balance between both writing and reading in classes.