In the passage, the author uses rhetorical techniques such as contrast and appeal to practicality to emphasize the importance of developing an edible cheese stick wrapper. By juxtaposing the common, unattractive cheese stick with its wasteful plastic wrap, the author highlights the potential for innovation that could reduce environmental impact. The mention of current edible plastic options being largely starch-based strengthens the argument by presenting the milk protein film as a healthier and more sustainable alternative. The author's purpose is to inform the reader about an exciting development in food packaging that could both enhance convenience and address environmental concerns.
"Here's a Food Wrapper You Can Eat"
by Randy Rieland
Consider the cheese stick. It is not a beautiful food. It also isn't particularly healthy. Cheese sticks are about as commonplace as snack food gets.
Yet in the packaged version that ends up in so many kids' lunch boxes, each cylinder of mozzarella or cheddar is individually wrapped, like a high-end truffle. And, every day, thousands of those little pieces of plastic wrap are thrown in the trash.
But that may not be the case for long.
Two researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have developed a film made from a milk protein. The film can be eaten with the cheese. Which means that it may not be too long before we have a wrapper we can eat. It also could be healthy. Edible plastic exists, but it's largely made of starch, not protein.
1 of 5
Question
Use the passage to answer the question.
In 3–5 sentences, analyze how the author used rhetoric to advance their point of view. Include a statement explaining the author’s purpose.
(4 points)
Short Answer Rubric (4 points)
Points Awarded Criteria
4
The answer is very clear.
The answer is fully supported by details.
There may be a few errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics. Errors do not interfere with meaning.
3
The answer is mostly clear.
The answer is supported by mostly relevant details.
There are a few errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics. Errors do not interfere with meaning.
2
The answer is somewhat clear.
Details are weak or not related.
There are some errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics. Errors interfere with meaning.
1
The answer is not clear.
There are few or no supporting details.
There are many errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics. Errors interfere with meaning.
0 The question is not answered.
1 answer