Read one of the essays in the back of this book (They Say, I Say 4th edition) or on the theysayiblog.com, identifying those places where the author agrees with others, disagrees, or both. The essay that he wants us to read is on page 245 “Don’t Blame The Eater” by David Zinczenko. Exercise 1 on page 66 of They Say I Say 4th edition.
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
Exercise 1 – “Don’t Blame the Eater” by David Zinczenko
Identifying: Agreeing, Disagreeing, or Both
Summary of Author’s Argument with Analysis:
In “Don’t Blame the Eater,” David Zinczenko both agrees and disagrees with others throughout his essay. He opens by agreeing with those who criticize fast-food consumers for making unhealthy food choices. He acknowledges the common view that eating fast food regularly is obviously bad for your health and that people should take personal responsibility. As he writes, “I tend to sympathize with these portly fast-food patrons,” suggesting that he understands the criticism aimed at people who overconsume fast food.
However, Zinczenko quickly disagrees with that stance by pointing out the limited choices available to many consumers, especially teenagers. He argues that for many low-income families, fast food is often the only affordable and accessible option. He criticizes the fast-food industry for failing to provide clear nutritional information and for marketing unhealthy food aggressively. For example, he states that when he was growing up, there were no healthier alternatives nearby and that most people didn’t know how many calories they were consuming.
Zinczenko also takes a both/and position when he acknowledges the importance of personal responsibility but insists that it must be supported by a better food environment. He doesn’t completely let individuals off the hook, but he insists that the food industry must share the blame. He writes, “Shouldn’t we know what we’re eating?”—calling for more transparency and public health responsibility.
Explanation
In academic writing, authors often align themselves with, against, or partly with others’ arguments. David Zinczenko, in “Don’t Blame the Eater,” demonstrates how a writer can balance agreement and disagreement to develop a nuanced argument.
Zinczenko begins by acknowledging the common belief that individuals are responsible for what they eat. He references this view respectfully, showing that he understands its logic. However, he doesn’t stop there. He uses this agreement as a starting point to pivot into his own perspective, disagreeing with the idea that consumers are solely to blame. This move illustrates the rhetorical strategy of “They say, I say”—first stating others’ views and then stating his own.
He then provides a counterargument by describing his personal experience as a teenager with limited food choices. By pointing out the absence of nutritional labeling and the overwhelming presence of fast-food outlets, Zinczenko shifts blame toward the industry. This is a classic example of disagreement supported by evidence and personal narrative.
Finally, Zinczenko incorporates a both/and approach, agreeing that personal responsibility matters, but insisting it must be understood in the context of corporate influence and environmental limitations. This balance makes his argument more persuasive, as it shows he has considered multiple sides.
By identifying these moves—agreement, disagreement, and both—we can better understand how academic arguments are constructed. Writers don’t just argue for the sake of it; they engage in a conversation, responding thoughtfully to what others say.
