Veganism is a strict diet that consists of only vegetables, fruits, grains and it eliminates foods such as dairy, eggs, meat, and even fish. Many Americans would argue that being a vegan is not healthy while some will argue that there are benefits of becoming a vegan. Vegans prefer to eat greens and fruits because they don’t want to eat animals and they say it is good for your health by reducing cholesterol, weight loss, and diabetes. Non-vegan people prefer meat because it provides mostly protein, more than vegetables, vitamin B12, iron and it tastes good.

The following two articles address the different perspectives regarding the benefits and detriments of veganism. The first article was written by Dave Asprey and published by Dave Asprey titled “Athletic Anti-Nutrition: What a Vegan Diet Did for Carl Lewis,”. In this article, Carl Lewis became a vegan for over a year, but his performance decreased drastically after the first year, so much so that he didn’t qualify for the Olympic team. The second article was written by Harvard Medical School and published by Harvard Medical School titled “Considering a Vegetarian Diet: Is Meat-Free Really Better?”. The article goes into detail on whether a meat-free diet, veganism, is good or not and it affirms it.

Both articles talk about the same topic and have opposing stances on it., yet Harvard Medical School article ends up being most persuasive. In order to persuade the reader, Dave Asprey uses it as a combination of anecdotes and examples. He starts off by using himself as an example of a person who went through a vegan diet, which makes the reader connect with him more. He also uses credible evidence from someone who went through veganism, Carl Lewis. His research and personal experiment and multiple studies confirmed the findings of the Clark Lewis experiment, which was that veganism had positive results at first and then fell off. He immediately lost a significant amount of weight and he often felt lethargic. 

80% of long-term vegans are deficient in vitamin B12, which is needed for proper mental function. B12 deficiency causes dementia, cognitive impairment, depression, and degenerative mental disorders. None of this effect improved Carl Lewis’s performance as a sprinter and long jump athlete.  Dave Asprey then shows his bias by jumping in and promoting his product which relates to meat and protein being better than veganism. His usage of multiple studies within his article served a twofold purpose: to support his claims with verifiable data and to convince readers through the power of logos. He can be considered somewhat credible seeing as his company has invested in the dieting market; however, he cannot be considered as credible as a person who exclusively studies veganism.

Harvard Medical School’s article relies heavily on facts and logic in order to persuade its readers, which makes sense considering it is a top-class medical school. Where it differed was that Harvard went more in-depth, and they also charted out an action plan in order to give the readers a starting point if they wish to become vegans. The article begins by providing statistical evidence of how many people live the vegan lifestyle which can serve as an eye-opener for some. Then they go into a list of studies that prove all the positive health benefits of the vegan lifestyle. They say, “a study published on March 9, 2015 … suggest a meat-free diet can reduce the risk of developing colon cancer” (Harvard).

It is clear by this point that the article aims to persuade through logos and ethos. The logos stems from the articles they use while the ethos comes from the fact that the article was written by Harvard Medical School, a top-tier school. The article, however, doesn’t seem to offer much in the way of pathos. Another way they advance their argument is through the introduction of error. They themselves say that “these studies were not randomized trials” (Harvard) and that serves as an entry point for a rebuttal which shows that while they acknowledge the shortcomings of the studies, there is still more evidence to support their viewpoint. They also kept their article more bias-free than Asprey’s which is critical in convincing some cynical readers.

Both articles are at odds with each other, but they have similarities in how they formulate their argument. Dave Asprey talked about how veganism is bad using the case of Clark Lewis and his own experiments in order to persuade the readers. He made major use of facts and studies, appealing to the scientific minds of the reader. Harvard Medical School talks about the benefits of veganism by using multiple studies as evidence to support its claims. Both claim to be the better path, but the decision lies with the reader and with how well the article did at convincing the reader.