1
UNIV1212: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Semester: spring 2013/2014
Instructor: LISA MARIE HIBBARD
Section 211
Name : REHAM ALZAHRANI
ID: 201200340
Assignment 4: Comparing and Contrasting Arguments
(Individual Work = 20%)
2
To Ban or Not to Ban Smoking in Public Areas
Introduction
Should smoking be banned in public areas or not? Smoking in public
areas has become a big issue in recent years. Many people are up in arms about
the subject and people on both sides of the argument feel that the subject is
unfair. Banning smoking in public places is arguably unfair to smokers and takes
away from their freedom; on the other hand, not banning it is unfair to the
nonsmokers and puts their health in danger making it unsafe for them to go to
public places where there are smokers. In the two essays provided, the two
authors discuss their very different points of view on whether smoking in public
should be banned or not. In the first essay, the author argues against banning
smoking in public places with a tone that aims to put his philosophy of smoking
above any other. However, in the second essay, the author approaches the topic
differently, explaining reasons for banning smoking. Although he is defensive in
reaction to others criticizing his choices to not smoke in public, he does not put
his method above that of others, but simply wants to justify it. Despite the fact
that the two authors discuss the same topic in their essays and both use
evocative methods of writing to support their argument, they do so using very
different viewpoints and attitudes towards the topic. This report will compare and
contrast the two essays stating the reasons given in both essays, their argument
types and fallacies.
Arguments against banning smoking in public
In the first essay, the author provided reasons against banning
smoking in public areas. He claims that many public places, like schools,
provide designated smoking areas far enough away from the building so that the
cigarette smoke will not affect the nonsmokers. The fallacy here is that the author
3
depended on a sweeping claim by using the word “many”. Furthermore, the
author jumps into the conclusion that cigarette smoke will not affect nonsmokers.
In fact, smoke from designated smoking areas easily moves from the smoking
areas to areas in a venue where smoking is not allowed. Air quality studies in
Beijing show that places with designated smoking areas had more than twice the
amount of pessay pollution than restaurants with 100% smoke-free policies (
CMU, 2008).
The author mentioned that employees who smoke at work places do so
because of stressful situations and if smoking is not allowed at work, then the
employees will be less productive. Here, the fallacy is that the author is begging
the question by asking the reader to simply accept the conclusion without
providing real evidence. In fact, there are other reasons for productivity level at
work. Stoller (1994) conducted a study on the productivity level of both smokers
and non-smokers at the work place. The results of our study show that former
smokers and never smokers may indeed be more productive than current
smokers.
The author used the effects of a ban on smoking in public places on bars,
pubs and clubs. He stated that Smokers would not go to these places if smoking
isn’t allowed and these businesses would earn less money from selling tobacco.
Although the author here is using logic, he is missing the point. The argument is
about the effects banning smoking on smokers and non-smokers and not on
businesses.
If smoking in public places is banned, this would encourage people to
smoke more at home and this will harm other people in their house, particularly
children. The author here used logical analysis which sounds fair, but here he is
using a slippery slope fallacy. He also mentioned that people smoking at home
may drink more alcohol than they would if they went to a bar. Here he is using
weak analogy by connecting smoking to drinking. Although drinking and smoking
are both addictive, they aren’t really alike in the relevant respects. Moreover, not
all smokers are drinkers.
4
Giving another reason, the author stated that Smokers fund their own
healthcare through the high taxes they pay on tobacco. Then he claims that
heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to nicotine. The
fallacy here is red herring . The author went off on a tangent—the fact that
smokers are unlikely to quit. The author assumes that readers will be distracted
from the fact that he has not given any evidence as to why this would be fair.
The other reason given is that it would be impossible to ban smoking
in many public places anyway. The author here is appealing to ignorance. His
point lacks evidence and he draws a conclusion from that lack of evidence.
Arguments for banning smoking in public areas
The authors first reason is that secondhand smoke increases the risk of
heart and lung diseases. The author depended examples and numbers from
previous studies to prove his point but didn’t provide reference.
The second reason is the effect of secondhand smoking on children’s
health. Again the author depended on results and numbers from previous studies
to prove his point.
The author’s main reason to ban smoking in public areas is because the
smoke does not remain solely in the smoking area and spreads around. The
author here used the example of a drop of color in water. The fallacy here is
using weak analogy by comparing liquid to smoke which don’t have the same
qualities. It is true that liquid and smoke spread around but it’s ridiculous to think
of smoke as liquid.
In another reason the author mentioned that everyone is aware of the
unpleasant smell associated with smoking. The author here uses a sweeping
claim by using the word “everyone”. This broad claim needs proof.
The author claims that allowing smoking in public places puts everyone
there in risk of injury by fire. He is using analogy in connecting cigarettes with fire
which seems logical but needs support by examples.
5
Comparison between the two essays
Both essays used weak analogy. The author in the first essay connected
drinking to smoking and the author in the second essay connected smoke to
water. Moreover, both depended on conclusions from generalizations. For
example, in the first essay, he author stated that many public places, like
schools, provide designated smoking areas far enough away from the building.
In the second essay the author claims that that everyone is aware of the
unpleasant smell associated with smoking.
Contrast between the two essays
In the two essays the authors discuss their very different points of view on
whether smoking in public should be banned or not. In the first essay, the author
argues against banning smoking in public places with a tone that aims to put his
philosophy of smoking above any other with no support from examples or
studies. However, in the second essay, the author approaches the topic
differently, explaining his own reasons for banning smoking by including numbers
and case studies and examples. the speeches are similar because they both use
powerful diction, tone, and argumentative methods to draw on their audience’s
emotions and religious fervor to call them to action
Conclusion
In conclusion, the two essays come from entirely different points of view
on whether smoking should be banned in public places or not. Both essays have
strong arguments. This is definitely a hot topic. The first essay is strong in
mentioning that smokers do have a right to their freedom. however the second
essay is stronger in stating that non-smokers have a right to be able to remain in
a smoke free environment and have freedom from secondhand smoke. I
personally think that the second essay is more persuasive as it discusses health
risks and well being issues which are considered a high priority to human beings.
6
References
CMU, (2008). Fine Pessays Density monitoring research on the air in six
types of Places in Beijing. Beijing: Capital medical University, 2008.
Stoller, K.S.(1994). Economic effects of insomnia. Clin Ther 16. 873–897