Jessica Bruder authored “The Picky Eater Who Came to Dinner” (29 Jun, 2012) to The New York Times. She is a journalist who focuses on subcultures and the dark economy. Emily Anthes penned “Accounting for Taste” (Jan/Feb 2011) for Psychology Today. She is a science journalist with credentials from reputable universities. Both journalists highlight the problem of picky eating and the reasons and motivations behind it. However, the article by Anthes is more suitable as it provides more information at a wider breadth and depth compared to Bruders. She brings in a more balanced argument with a clearer intent and definition of the issue compared to Bruder’s unconvincing case and lack of credible sources.
Anthes constructs a proper description on…show more content… This is likely to bode well with readers given her background as a science journalist. She also provides a background to the theme in paragraphs 1 and 2, which allows readers to anticipate the direction of her case thereby making it more reliable. Compared to Bruders, who confuses the concept of with the idea of a “restrictive diet” and explains that it is one that is an “identity-driven pronouncement”. She also mentions that consumers are “adjusting their appetites to reflect independence and moral character” which runs contrary as there is no clear basis for her claim of a “picky eater”. Instead she divulges that it is more of a choice rather than an inevitable phenomenon as illustrated by Anthes. Anthes not only discusses the problems faced by picky eaters but she also concludes with suggestions on how people of this nature can overcome their problem by being “patient and persistent”, amalgamating “abhorred food with a preferred one” and educating oneself. This undoubtedly discloses the intent of her argument as a problem-solution case, which seeks to educate readers as compared to Bruders who continuously backs her claims with more examples and situations where people are ‘picky