“The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco” Analysis of an Argument Essay

 

  1. Introduction

For this essay, the opinion editorial from a reputable news sources, namely The New York Times, will be analyzed. The title of the editorial written by the Editorial Board is “The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco”. This source of information can be used for the analysis of the argument because the authors reveal an important theme, which can be described as an issue of public concern. According to researchers, “editorials are defined as unsigned columns that represent the official opinions of the newspaper’s editorial board and that appear on the editorial page” (Hallock 67). The opinion presented in the selected editorial reflects a diversity of ideas and beliefs regarding the issue of smoking (Meister 23). There is much evidence that the users of smokeless tobacco do not suffer from the complications faced by tobacco users. For example, they have less risk of lung disease and atherosclerosis than smokers (Lewis et al. 156). At the same time, the use of smokeless tobacco increases the risk of some serious diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and mouth cancer (Soriano 24).  Thesis statement: The authors’ argument in the editorial “The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco” is convincing as the authors effectively use various techniques to persuade the reader and make him/her agree with the major claims made in the piece of writing.

  1. The summary of the editorial

The editorial “The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco” that will be discussed in this paper can be found in The New York Times. The online version of this editorial appeared on April 23, 2015. The authors of the editorial are the professional writers and journalists from the newspapers’ Editorial Board. They claim that smokeless tobacco is dangerous, although the makers of smokeless tobacco products believe that their “products are safer than cigarettes because users don’t inhale the tars and toxic chemicals from burning tobacco” (“The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco”). The authors of the editorial place emphasis on the harms and risks faced by the users of smokeless tobacco. They believe that federal regulators should protect public health, addressing the emerging challenges and reducing the harmful effects of many products. This is the major argument.

As defined by the authors, the major problem for federal regulators is that they need to consider the increased sales of electronic cigarettes, which tend to make liquid nicotine into a vapor. According to statistical data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, millions of students prefer to use electronic cigarettes. There is much evidence provided by the authors that the decrease in student smoking can be explained by other factors, including “higher taxes and public service campaigns that highlighted the ghastly effects of smoking” (“The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco”). In addition, the authors claim that Nicotine is not only harmful to be taken in, leading to brain damage, but also highly addictive. According to the authors, the makers of e-cigarettes tend to promote the traditional cigarettes through promotion campaigns. Although the Food and Drug Administration established the rules on e-cigarette marketing, many young people continue to smoke cigarettes. Some strategies to control the use of tobacco by young people include the restriction of TV marketing, changes in packaging design and replacement of warning labels.

  1. The analysis and evaluation of the argument

The authors’ argument was constructed effectively; therefore, it succeeded at convincing the reader of the possible perils of smokeless tobacco. The strengths of the editorial include strong argument, much evidence to support the argument (statistical data and reliable sources of information), clear and comprehensive language and structure. The weaknesses of the editorial include the lack of names of the authors and small amount of citations to support the argument (only one citation is used). The overall achievement of the authors is considerable as the argument is sound and well-developed. Analyzing the authors’ rhetorical strategies, it is necessary to refer to pathos, ethos and logos. The message conveyed by the authors is logically sound as the issue of smoking remains the issue of public concern. The authors use credible information, promoting trustworthiness.  They also appeal to the audience’s emotions, establishing pathos through the description of the negative effects of the use of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco by young people. In fact, the authors’ strategies contribute to the overall effectiveness of the argument.  The authors’ use of rhetorical appeals, their style of writing, their personas make their argument convincing.

Actually, it is necessary to evaluate the argument’s ability to convince the reader based on the way it is written. The argument is sound as the facts provided by the authors help to recognize the truth about the use of e-cigarettes and the effects of smokeless tobacco on human health. To start with, the authors support their thesis adequately and through a variety of means, including the statistical data taken from the latest survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of student smoking, experts’ opinion regarding the use of e-cigarettes by high school students, the opinion of Dr. Thomas Frieden, the C.D.C. director regarding the major factors that decreased smoking among students. The statistical data was interpreted fairly. The authors quoted credible authorities, including Dr. Thomas Frieden, the C.D.C. director, The Times reports, and the Food and Drug Administration’s initiatives.  In addition, the authors use many examples to prove their claims regarding smoking. They do not over-generalize anything, as well as they do not exclude important information.

Furthermore, the authors of the editorial seem to target the general public, but special attention is placed on young people involved in smoking. Therefore, the targeted audience consists of parents, teachers, students, educators, health care professionals and government officials. The authors use various strategies to gain the trust and readership of that particular audience. For example, they use simple and comprehensive language to be easily interpreted by the audience, reliable sources and well-developed structure of the editorial. There are several paragraphs in the editorial, which help to present the proper information in the most easy-readable form.

Finally, the authors’ tone is neutral as the authors provide informative passages that help to persuade the reader and accept their viewpoints regarding the use of smokeless tobacco. There are no signs of emotions presented by the authors. However, the authors remain optimistic as they put high hopes of the F.D.A.’s role in resolving the described problem. According to the authors, “the F.D.A. should not approve any change in labeling without much stronger evidence to support the company’s assertion” (“The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco”). Actually, the authors’ tone helps to support their argument. Based on the piece of writing, the authors’ personas can be characterized as reliable, well-educated, judicially competent and socially oriented in their activity. It becomes clear that the authors successfully established ethos and made their authority clear through demonstrating good characters.

  1. Conclusion

Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the authors’ argument is strong enough to persuade the reader of the significance of the issue. The authors use credible sources, valid quotes, effective tone, reliable statistical data and other strategies that help to support the argument. The major concern is that the use of smokeless tobacco products can make nonsmokers take up the nicotine habit, and continue on cigarette smoking habit.

 

Works Cited

Hallock, S. M. Editorial and Opinion: The Dwindling Marketplace of Ideas in Today’s News. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2007. Print.

Lewis, S. L., Dirksen, S. R., Heitkemper, M. M. & Bucher, L. Medical-Surgical Nursing: Assessment and Management of Clinical Problems. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2013. Print.

Meister, Katheleen. Helping Smokers Quit: A Role for Smokeless Tobacco? The American Council on Science and Health.

Soriano, Kathern. Factors that Contribute to Smokeless Tobacco Use in Adolescents in Southern West Virginia. ProQuest, 2007. Print.

“The Perils of Smokeless Tobacco.” The New York Times 23 April 2015. Web. 23 April 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/the-perils-of-smokeless-tobacco.html?ref=opinion

 

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person