Three Articles on page 8: Arguments and Persuasive Language
- Queuing for restaurants by Tim Aitken, OR
- Legalising Cannibas for good reasons, Mr Smith
- The most effective way to fight global poverty, Jennifer Jansz, Blackburn
Queuing for restaurants by Tim Aitken
Introduction: explain Mr Aitken’s motivation for writing: Mr Aitken is motivated to voice his opinion because of the erosion of profitability of many restaurant owners. ..
(Paragraph 1: comment on the authorial voice and Mr Aitken’s degree of bias. Although he is a consultant, how does he try to appear fair? Remember to think about the questions on p. 9.)
Adopting a defensive but assertive tone, Mr Aitken justifies the no-booking’s policy on the grounds that the failure of clients to honour their bookings is exacerbating the financial difficulties of restaurants. Whilst he admits that he has expertise in this area, Mr Aitken skilfully disarms opponents by declaring his bias and degree of interest in the restaurateur’s scheme of a no-booking’s policy. By stating that he is “partisan on behalf of the restaurant industry” readers are likely to react with scepticism; however, the fact that he has first-hand professional and economic knowledge of the industry coupled with his sensitivities towards patrons’ frustration predisposes readers to respond more favourably to his supporting reasons, based mainly on economic grounds. (Note: explain how he tries to win the public’s support despite his obvious bias.) Furthermore, Mr Aitken establishes common ground by referring to his own dislike for queuing which is evidently a source of extreme frustration among patrons. By removing this barrier readers are more likely to overlook his tendency to justify what could be seen as self-serving policies.
(Paragraph 2: In the second paragraph include more specific details relating to the author’s reasoning strategies; discuss the implications of his depiction of owners; ie. The author seeks to command respect and sympathy by showing that they are disadvantaged.)
Accordingly, Mr Aitken nurtures the reader’s trust in order to present a reasonable approach and justify the restaurants’ stance that a booking’s policy undermines a viable business model. In order to clarify his stance that profits have decreased, Mr Aitken refers to statistics from the ATO, and the comparative and relatable example of the cup of coffee to prove the erosion of a restaurateur’s profitability. For example, patrons would be shocked at the suggestion that a cup of coffee would be $7.80. Such reasons seek to reassure readers that the owners are helpless rather than indifferent.
Compare and contrast paragraph : Mr Aitken and Ms Tritorn (See p. 8.)
(Start with some linking comments or cross-references with regards to the viewpoints.) In contrast to Mr Aitken who uses his professional status as a consultant, Ms Tritorn (“Let’s focus on service”) relies on her personal experience to explain her frustration at the no-bookings policy which she believes leads to indifferent treatment of patrons. Also, if Mr Aitken presents a sympathetic depiction of owners, Ms Tritorn counters this with the shameful treatment of her friend who was “relegated to the footpaths”. (Note: zoom in on specific references and the implications of her word choices.) Specifically, Ms Tritorn uses her experience to sharpen her attack on the owners who she believes are treating patrons shamelessly and who disregard the hospitality ethos. She expects patrons to share her outrage and blacklist offending restaurant owners who fail to show the respect patrons deserve.
Likewise the cartoonist reinforces Ms Tritorn’s depiction and suggests that they are expediently exploiting the policy. The cartoonist includes a sarcastic caption which refers to the fact that restaurateurs might use the policy to discriminate among patrons. The difference between a 15 and a 45-minute wait may strike a chord with some patrons and is like to foster resentment among many who have had similar experiences.
Whether or not it is the restaurateurs or the patrons who are disadvantaged by the introduction of a ‘no bookings’ policy tends to depend upon the stakeholder’s perspective. According to Mr Aitken, it is important to see the business owners’ view that they are not prospering economically and, sensibly and logically, he encourages patrons to accept the consequences of this. However, patrons may have a polarised view owing to their own personal experience, such as Ms Triton’s who shares her feelings of frustration with readers. This issue will continue to elicit a variety of emotional responses and is difficult to resolve because of the competing interests at stake.
Comparison Task: “Let’s focus on service”, by Amanda Tritorn
Aghast at the trend towards no-bookings, this patron will be blacklisting all those places that refuse to look after us. When I go out, I like to be assured that I will have a convenient table and that I and fellow diners will be treated respectfully.
As fine-diners, we are guests of the restaurant and expect to be treated as such — not relegated to the footpaths, queuing on rainy nights as my friend recently did just because two of her friends were running late. She was not able to sit at the table, even though she was the real deal.
As for the dubious argument, that those who don’t show up are costing the establishment time and money and table space, honestly, that’s business.
Restauranteurs are becoming increasingly business-like in an industry that should focus on hospitality, service and respect.
Faithfully yours, Amanda Tritorn