Fall Semester 2013-2014
UNIV 1212: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Assignment 4: Compare and Contrast Two Argument Essays (20%)
Submitted to: Lisa Hibbard
Section 203
Name: Samar E. Al- Shammari
ID: 201100856
Major: HR
Banning Smoking in Public Places
Introduction
Each story has two sides even smoking. In my opinion smoking is a slow killer. An
argument about this issue still not been solved. I read about the two sides of this story. It
surprised me that both sides did their best. The arguments in the two essays were analyzed in
terms of argument type, fallacies used, and evidence presented. Then the two essays were
compared and contrasted. Finally, a conclusion was presented including my assessment on which
argument was stronger.
Arguments against Banning Smoking
Designated Smoking Area is one of the reasons to allow smoking in public places. It is an
argument by example where the practice in some places to have designated smoking area is used.The
assumption in this argument is that designated areas will prevent second hand smoking harm. This is a
hasty conclusion. It failed to show that all places have designated areas. It failed to show that all
designated areas are far enough.
Smoking helps employees to deal with stressful situations. This argument is based on
authority. The arguer made assertions about smokers’ behavior at work. These were false
because there is no evidence about the expertise and there are no references to evidence about
these behaviors. Also, this argument is based on three assumptions. Smoking reduces work
stress. When smokers prevented from smoking, their productivity will decrease. If smoking is
banned, smokers will behave like teenager smokers. This argument and its assumptions used
false cause and hasty conclusions. There is no evidence about the causes and effects indicated by
this argument. The evidence in general is not sufficient to make the argument.
Smokers’ right is another argument. This argument is based on authority. The arguer
asserted this right and asserted that the smokers’ right exists despite the popular belief. This is
false, however. The arguer was not an expert and did not present the law or evidence about this
right. Also, this argument is based on hasty conclusion. There isn’t enough evidence that
smokers do not harm others even if they smoke in designated areas. Their funding of healthcare
problems is not an evidence of their right. Also there was no enough information about this
funding amount compared to healthcare cost. Also the argument that they are addicted and will
smoke any way is based on appeal to pity. Their addiction cannot be a good reason to allow
smoking. It begs the question about other addictions to drugs and other harmful substances.
People might smoke more in their homes which will hurt their family members is
another argument. This argument falsely used authority. The arguer asserted that smoking at
home will increase and it will lead to increase alcohol consumption. The arguer is not an expert.
He did not show any evidence or references. Also, this argument is based on hasty conclusion. It
failed to show evidence that banning public smoking will increase home smoking. It also argues
for public smoking so that home smoking is not increased. This is a two wrongs make right. The
last part of the argument is based on false cause where banning is assumed to increase alcohol
consumption.
Another argument is that banning smoking in public places will harm businesses
such as clubs and bars. This argument is based on the assumptions that smokers will not go to
these businesses and nonsmokers are not enough for these businesses to make profit. These are
hasty conclusions as the evidence was not presented. Also there is an appeal to pity because of
possible unemployment. Also this argument is based on the slippery slope. A chain of causes and
effects were suggested without evidence. The whole argument is a false argument by authority.
It is hard to police the smoking ban in all public places. This argument is based on
two assumptions. First, policing is needed in every place. Second, smokers will violate the ban. It
is an argument by authority that fails to show expertise or evidence. There is hasty conclusion.
Also there is fallacy on the ground of two wrongs make right. Possible difficulty in policing does
not make public smoking right.
Arguments for Banning Smoking
Second hand smoking increases heart and lung disease and cancers. This is an
argument by authority. The writer used four statistical informations to show the high risk. In my
opinion this part is strong. There are no mistakes in terms of using fallacy.
Banning smoking in public places is needed because of harm to children. This is an
argument by authority. The writer advanced data and numbers to show effect on children. The
argument will be stronger if the writer provided the source of his data. However, there were no
clear fallacies in this argument.
Another argument is the harm of secondhand smoke on fetuses of mothers. This
argument is by authority. It was a short argument. The assumption in this argument is that the
harm to fetuses is self-evident. This is false. There is hasty conclusion and appeal to pity. The
writer failed to show evidence or references to evidence.
The smoke spread in the air from designated smoking areas to nonsmoking areas. In
general this type of argument is logical but weak. This argument based on hasty conclusions. The
argument didn’t provide scientific reasons to prove that smoke can spread in the way described.
Unpleasant smell associated with smoking. This argument is based on example. Also it
is based on begging the question. In this argument the writer didn’t think of other possibility.
How about other smells causes? Would they be banned? There is also hasty conclusion. The
writer did not show that smell is a good reason to ban smoking. The writer did not show any
evidence related to this argument.
Another argument is to ban smoking in public places for safety and environment
damages reasons. This argument is based on hasty conclusion due to lack of evidence. The
writer did not show evidence about smoking related fires and about making places dirty with
cigarette butts.
Comparison Between the Two Essays
The type of most of the arguments is argument by authority. Both essays used hasty
conclusions. For example, one side argued that designated smoking areas will prevent
secondhand smoking and the other side argued that public smoking will cause fires and damage
to the environment. Both sides did not show clear evidence for these arguments. Both essays
have arguments that appealed to pity such as impact of the ban on businesses and employment
and impact of second hand smoking on smell and the environment.
Contrast Between the Two Essays
While the essay against the ban does not have any data or solid evidence, the essay for
the ban has data and statistics to show impact of second hand smoking on health and on children.
Conclusion
One essay argues against banning smoking in public places. Another argues for banning
smoking in public places. The problem being addressed is the secondhand smoking and its harm
to health. No one argues against this problem. The arguments were about how to deal with it.
The essay against the ban argues that the current practices of having designated areas for
smoking will deal with the secondhand smoking problem. It relied on hasty conclusions and
failed to provide scientific evidence. The opposing essay, provided data and statistics that show
potential damage of second hand smoke. At the same time it provided arguments such as spread
of smoke or smoking smell that have no clear evidence and based on hasty conclusions.
In my opinion, the essay for banning smoking in public places is more convincing. It has
data and information about secondhand smoking problem.