Major: information technology



Download 61,51 Kb.
Date conversion08.03.2018
Size61,51 Kb.



Compare and Contrast Two Argument

Section :203

ID:201202446

Major: information technology



Lulwah albabtain








Introduction

This report will be discussing a well-known topic which is whether smoking should be banned in public places or not, it is crucial to discuss this topic because people who are with or against this topic need to come up with a final solution also this topic has been going for years it needs to come to an end. From my own perspective smokers have no right to be smoking in public places even in a smoking area, since scientific evidence has proven to smokers that smoking ultimately causes early chronic diseases and early death, besides the media has worked hard on demonstrating the negative health effects of smoking, yet smokers continue to smoke claiming that as long as they have isolated places that separates them from non-smokers, they will not harm anyone’s health. This report will include the arguments against Banning Smoking, discuss the arguments for Banning Smoking and then compare and mention the similarities between the two arguments, and contrast the differences between the two arguments.



Arguments against Banning Smoking

The first reason was, setting an isolated place for smokers in every location with the sign of smoking area. And that will give smokers some freedom and will not harm non-smokers at all.

The fallacy in this reason was two wrongs make a right, because smoking is a bad behavior regardless whether it was in a closed private place or in public, also the reason seems logical yet it does not support the conclusion that’s why it is considers one of the inadequate reasons .the argument type in this reason is argument by example because it gave a clear example of how isolated smoking areas are only for people who smoke and that they have a sign that justifies to non-smokers that this area is full of smoke. The assumption in this reason is a value assumption because it contained a belief that was for the good of people who don’t smoke, and that was indicated in this part of the essay “If non-smokers should wish to enter the smoking area, then they should not complain when their clothes smell of cigarette smoke”. Yet even though smokers are provided with privatized smoking areas, smoke could spread in air conditioners and small pipes that could help the smoke to travel from the smoking areas to the public places, where children and old people exist.

The second reason , was that employees will be using smoke as a stress reliever and that it would help them with tough situations at work , banning smoking will cause workers to sneak off and that will lead to an unprofessional image of the employee and low productivity as well .

The fallacy is the false cause, and it’s an inadequate reason because the reason indicates that if the employee does not smoke they will sneak off, therefore it will lead to an unprofessional image because they did not smoke from the beginning, this idea is similar to Stating that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second event. In addition the argument type in this reason is argument by example, since it gave an example of how workers will sneak off their work offices just like little teenagers in high school. Moreover the assumption in this reason is a reality assumption because it focused on how workers will look generally look unprofessional when their sneaking out of work just to smoke cigarettes. While analyzing this reason it appears to be absolutely unconvincing, first employees shouldn’t be using smoke as a stress reliever no matter how severe the situation was. Second sneaking off from work or smoking while working both is considered unprofessional, a company must require workers that devote their time on work and on assisting their customers, smoking cigarettes is not an important thing in work, also using stress and rough situation is not an excuse to smoke in work or out of work .

The third reason supports the belief of smokers have the right to smoke and smokers are responsible of their own health. As long as their following the company’s rules, they are not harming anyone else other than themselves. Also smokers who are addicted have a small possibility to quit smoking in the future.

This reason has the fallacy of two wrongs make a right, because at the end of the paragraph the writer stated that all smokers are unlikely to quit smoking because of the long term addiction on cigarettes and because of the addictive chemicals such as nicotine it is unlikely to quit smoking and that it is an excuse for smokers to smoke until their health problems accumulate. The argument type this reason is also by example because it gave an example of how smokers follow the company’s policy regarding smoking. The assumption here is a value assumption because it stated at the beginning of the reason that there is an increasing and popular belief, that smokers do have a right to smoke freely. This reason has no supporting evidence that shows how smokers have a small possibility to quit smoking, according to the American cancer society “Studies in medical journals have reported that about 25% of smokers who use medicines can stay smoke-free for over 6 months.” (“A word about quitting success rates,” n.d.). Therefore there is a hope for people who smoked their entire lives to quit smoking and restore their health and wellness.

The fourth reason has stated that banning smoking will cause smokers , to smoke in their houses , and this will eventually jeopardize the children’s health , also smokers will not go to bars to smoke and drink in high prices , they will consume alcohol from cheaper supermarkets , and this will effects the smoker’s health because of overdose of alcohol and indoor smoke.

This reason has a fallacy and it the slippery slope, if smoking is banned in public places smokers will smoke at home and affect their own children, and they will consume cheap alcohol which will cause more health problems and this is similar to the idea of slippery slope fallacy, if one event occurs, then other events will follow in an inevitable way. The argument type in this reason is also by giving examples because they explained how smokers will consume alcohol in a cheap price and off-license .the assumption here is a value assumption because it focused on the smoker’s health when their buying more alcohol and harming their own children at home . This reason might be convincing, yet it is not a convincing excuse to smoke in public places, smokers who smoke at home must realize what they’re doing to their own health and their family and friends. According to website called better health “smokers inhale about 7,000 other chemicals .these chemicals harm nearly every organ in the body” ((Victoria) & Quit, n.d.)

The fifth reason was clubs and business that sell tobacco, will ultimately lose because of the smoke ban and people with low skills and no college degrees will be almost homeless because they have no jobs after banning smoke.

Here the fallacy is the slippery slope, because one event which is banning smoking in public areas caused other events and issues to occur. The argument type in this reason is argument by example, because it justified how clubs and other bossiness will lose because of banning smoking. The assumption in this reason is a reality assumption since it focused on business’s and companies who sell tobacco, it focused on the condition of the world’s economy when smoke is banned .this reason is quiet convincing since it focused on people with low skills and want to get a job so they can provide money to their poor families or for themselves, but there are countless jobs that individuals with low skills can get in, other than working in clubs or tobacco companies. In addition in the case of losing companies they can switch their products into healthier ones, products that do not kill people and jeopardize their health.

The last reason that was against banning smoking in public areas, states that police men are not capable of catching people who smoke, small workplaces will neglect this policy and no one will find out if they smoke, staff or employees that are non-smokers will not report smokers in the building.

This reason fallacy is begging the question because the writer made a claim or statement without giving evidence other than the claim or statement itself. The argument type is argument by example because it gave examples of how police will never be able to catch smokers , small workplace’s will ignore the ban .the assumption in this reason is a reality assumption since it focused on the individuals and institutions reaction to the ban of smoking in public places . This reason has no evidence that proves how the world reacted to the policy of banning smoke in public places; police are able to set huge groups in every village to detect people who smoke. Small workplaces can be observed by higher institutions or authorities who are highly strict with keeping smoke free workplaces.

Arguments for Banning Smoking

The first reason that was for banning smoking in public places, the negative consequences of secondhand smoke , and how it causes heart diseases and lung cancer to people who never smoked but they are around people who constantly smoke .

The fallacy in this reason is the slippery slope fallacy because after one event other events occurred rapidly. The argument type is argument by example, because it gave an example of how secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart diseases. Moreover the assumption in this reason is a value assumption because it focused on the health impacts on non-smokers when they are around secondhand smoke and how it ultimately affects them. In addition according to Cleveland clinic “Smoke contains more than 4000 chemical compounds, of which 250 are toxic and more than 50 are known cancer-causing agents. These dangerous substances linger in the air for approximately 4 hours and breathing in these particles for only minutes can harm you.”(“Cleveland Clinic - Dangers of Second-Hand Smoke,” n.d.) Therefore people who don’t smoke need to avoid people who do, because it will affect them as if they are actual smokers.

The second reason is that secondhand smoke will dangerously affect young children, who live with parents who smoke regularly and that they are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as lung cancer, pneumonia, bronchitis and a higher risk of developing asthma and other extremely dangerous disorders.

This reason fallacy is also the slippery slope, because when second smoke occur other issues and diseases will be affecting the people around it, especially children. The argument type in this reason is argument by example, since it gave statistical evidence of how secondhand smoke affects young children and ultimately causes early death. Furthermore the assumption is a value assumption because the reason was generally concerned about children’s health and what is important for them in particular. Moreover it is also been proven by Cleveland clinic that secondhand smoke causes learning issues and behavior changes , poor dental health and High blood pressure(“Cleveland Clinic - Dangers of Second-Hand Smoke,” n.d.).

The third reason why smoking should be banned in public places is because it spreads throughout the building generating diseases with it, affecting old people, children and pets.

The fallacy in this reason is also the slippery slope because if smoke exists in the building this causes other negative consequences on people continually. However the argument type in this reason is an argument by analogy, because the writer compared to things that are different but similar in one thing the writer compared the spread of smoke in the air as the spread of food coloring in the water. The assumption in this reason is reality assumption because it focused on what is general.


The fourth reason that was for the policy of banning smoking, is the unpleasant smell of smoke especially in restaurants ,and that it offensive for people who don’t smoke to smell like smokers when their coming back from a fancy restaurant.

The fallacy in this reason is an appeal to pity fallacy, because the writer describes the disappointment of nonsmokers when the smell of nicotine sticks in their cloths. The argument type in this reason is by example since it gave an example of how nonsmokers will feel uncomfortable when they’re going to a restaurant that has smoke. The assumption in this reason is a value assumption for the reason that it is concerned about what is good or bad for non-smokers. furthermore smelling like cigarettes will not only be offensive , but will put many young adults in trouble when they go back to their parents’ home , smelling like smoke feeling guilty of something they didn’t do.

The fifth reason, smoke causes potential dangerous situations, injuries caused by sudden fire in places where they allow smoking, smoke has other negative impacts on the environment.

The fallacy in this reason is again a slippery slope, if one event occurs, then other events will follow in an inevitable way. Smoke will cause sudden fires and that will cause injuries also it will affect the environment and the surroundings. The argument here is by example because it gave an example that even when there a specific places for cigarettes disposal, smokers still throw there cigarettes on the floor, affecting the environment in every possible way .the assumption in this reason is reality assumption since it focused on the fires and the environment, and what is good or bad for the world holistically.

The last reason agrees with policy of banning smoking, the united states has the right to remain a smoke free country and to eliminate the impacts of secondhand smoke , and that the government are still witnessing the dangers and the risks of secondhand smoke .

There are no fallacies in this reason, the argument type is by authority since it conferred the decision of whether to ban smoke in public places or not to the government. The assumption in this reason is a value assumption; it focused on what is beneficial for the citizens and the concerns about their health risks.



Comparison Between the Two Essays

In the first essay and in the second essay almost all of the reasons were argument by example , almost all of them gave clear and simple examples to justify why they made the claim or statement for instance the fourth reason that was for the policy of banning smoking and about how the unpleasant smell of smoke especially in restaurants becomes offensive for the customers, and the second reason in the first essay , was that employees will be using smoke as a stress reliever and that it would help them with tough situations at work , both reasons gave an argument by examples , Furthermore the similar and the most common fallacies among the two essays was the slippery slope fallacy , to specify the fourth reason in the essay that was against the ban , has stated that banning smoking will cause smokers , to smoke in their houses , and this will eventually jeopardize the children’s health similarly the third reason in the essay that was for the ban , that smoke spreads throughout the building generating diseases with it, affecting old people, children and pets , both reasons are similar in the fallacy since both of them used the exact criteria of , If one event occurs, then other events will follow in an inevitable way.



Contrast Between the Two Essays

There were a few differences between the argument types, such as in the first essay in the fifth reason that discussed how clubs and tobacco sellers or owners will lose their jobs had an argument by giving an example in contrast to the sixth reason in the second essay that discussed how government are the ones that are responsible of making the decision whether to ban smoke or not, had an argument by authority .furthermore there were several difference in the fallacies , for instance in the first essay the first reason that discussed setting an isolated place for smokers had the fallacy of two wrong make a right , on the other hand the second essay in the fourth reason that discussed the unpleasant smell of smoke especially in restaurants and that it offensive for people who don’t smoke , had the fallacy of appeal to pity .



Conclusion

This report deliberated a well-known topic which is whether smoking should be banned in public places or not, and it obviously very important to discuss this topic since it has been ongoing in the past few years. While analyzing and evaluating the arguments, it seems that the two essays gave clear examples, illustrations and evidence that can convince a reader. However the second essay that was for the ban of smoking in public places appears to be more convincing, as it gave statistical evidence that sounds more substantial and reliable than the statements that were claimed with limited evidence in the first essay.

Reference list

(Victoria), D. of H. S., & Quit. (n.d.). Smoking - effects on your body. Better Health Channel. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Smoking_effects_on_your_body



Cleveland Clinic - Dangers of Second-Hand Smoke. (n.d.).Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/smoking/hic_dangers_of_second-hand_smoke.aspx


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page