He uses it to grab the reader's attention and also to not pick a certain side, but to rather keep himself in the middle of the argument so that he is able to be able to examine both sides of the story and look at the pros and cons of both of the sides. The effect of changing sides and giving separate viewpoints gives the reader time to develop his/her views on what they think is right and how they are able to perceive the festival as. By Wallace allowing the audience the ability to form their opinion on what they think of all of this, it gives each reader a different perspective of how they want to interpret it. This gives a twist to Wallace’s writing that most articles don’t give the opportunity to. This sentence is the first of many that allow the reader to develop and to kind of think of where do they actually stand on the moralities of this article. Is it acceptable to “go with the flow” and just mindlessly eat lobster because everyone else around them is doing the same even though maybe morality wise, this isn’t the best decision? Or should we actually consider the underlying facts of how the lobsters meet their fate? Later on, the article
Wallace gives the morality points of why this whole festival is wrong for not only the lobsters but for the people consuming the