In my articles I have noticed some logical fallacies. In article 1, “The Disappearance of Hunger in America”, it could be said that the USDA’s decision to eliminate the word “hunger” from its assessment of food security was because of their shame or embarrassment. Bandwagon could be applied here, in that the USDA was heavily pressured by its members to cover up a national problem. As for article 2, I could not find a strong logical fallacy. I would say this is a strength of article 2, that it has a lot of ethos; it supports mostly everything with data or credible sources.
