This “Nursing Your Sweet Tooth” graphic makes a visual argument that we (Americans) are eating too much sugar by hyperbolically representing the amount of sugar the average American consumes over time with absurd physical objects (i.e. in a lifetime, this much).
The presentation also gives information about the main sources of sugar in the American diet (focusing specifically on soda), and negative health outcomes associated with high intake. The graphic is on forbes.com, so it seems likely that the intended audience is white, middle to upper class businessmen, who, interestingly, consume comparatively less sugar than lower-income black or Hispanic consumers.
The goal of the data presentation seems to be fear mongering: awaken people to the ill effects of their high dietary sugar consumption, and they will be so disgusted with their habits that they will never again touch a can of soda or a candy bar. The colors of the graphic – red, black, white and gray – and some of the typology evoke Coca-Cola, which helps drive home the point about soda’s contribution of sugar to the American diet. I think the graphic is effective in conveying a sense that the American diet is too high in added sugar, which is certainly true: 13% of calories in the American diet come from added sugars, which is significantly higher than the amount from every authoritative organization (USDA, WHO, etc). However, in terms of behavior change impact on the intended audience, the graphic seems relatively ineffective. First, the intended audience probably does not consume high levels of sugar, so it doesn’t make sense to target them as a population that needs to cut down on sugar intake. Second, some of the illustrations meant to shock the reader are over-exaggerated and nonsensical (i.e. in one lifetime we eat the amount of sugar in 1,767,900 Skittles), and end up conveying very little substantive information.



Later in the article, there is a comparison to selectivity of the school to non-medical Adderall use, shown by the second visual aid. We can see a clear positive correlation, as the school gets more selective the percentage of students using increases. And a few schools are highlighted to show where they fall on the graph. This graphic is not very effective; the four selected schools seem as though they were chosen at random, and I don’t think the graph accurately portrays what the rest of the article is trying to say. The graph alone would lead you to believe that the brightest of college students frequent Adderall most often to succeed, but from the reading we learn that it tends to be the students with lower GPAs at their respective college that abuse Adderall.
The first visualization is of recent Islamic State attacks in Libya. This is a very strong chart in many ways. In broad-strokes, it displays the data very clearly and in simply. It adds to the reader’s understanding of the story. And it is visually pleasing without being distracting.







