Smoking Essay Research Paper SmokingPart IP1 The

Smoking Essay, Research Paper

Smoking

Part I:

P1: The FDA wants to stop teens from smoking before they start.

P2: Three million youngsters smoke now.

P3: The smoking rate among eighth-graders has jumped 50% since 1991.

P4: This will not stop on its own.

P5: Tobacco company marketing and recently released internal memos show the industry

takes teens into its calculations.

P6: A Philip Morris 1981 memo worried it would “suffer more than other companies from

the decline in teen-age smokers”.

P7: R.J. Reynolds memos show it launched the cartoonish Joe Camel in the early 1990’sto

appeal to young-adult smokers.

P8: Camel became the third most popular (brand of cigarettes) among the under-18 set.

P9: If tobacco is ruled a drug, the FDA would have to ban cigarettes as “dangerous”.

P10: The government isn’t about to repeat the same mistake it made with the prohibition

of alcohol.

P11: There are 50 million adult smokers.

P12: Cigarette manufacturers spend millions annually to prevent (the banning of

cigarettes).

P13: The $50 billion industry has spread campaign money lavishly.

P14: Among the state legislators to get them to preempt tough local laws against teen

tobacco sales with loophole-ridden state schemes.

P15: Among members of Congress to keep regulations at bay.

P16: Since the Republicans took over in 1995, FDA Commissioner David Kessler took in

$3 million in tobacco industry contributions.

P17: There are rumors the companies may make a $10 billion-a-year deal to settle their

liability suits.

C: We should support tougher regulations to keep tobacco companies from targeting

adolescents in their advertising strategies.

Part II:

This is an Inductive argument because it is intended to make the conclusion more

likely. It is relatively strong because it marshalls several plausible reasons, while some are

controversial and in need of further investigation.

P1: is plausible.

P2: is fairly plausible.

P3: is plausible.

P4: seems logical because the higher the number of children smoking, the higher the

possibility of peer pressure to smoke.

P5: is fairly plausible.

P6: is fairly plausible.

P7: makes sense, but requires further investigation.

P8: is plausible.

P9: is plausible.

P10: seems logical considering the problems associated with Prohibition.

P11: is plausible.

P12: makes sense.

P13: is fairly plausible.

P14: The reasons behind giving the campaign money in this premise are controversial.

P15: This premis is controversial and an opinion.

P16: is plausible.

P17: is unreliable and would need further investigation.

Part III:

P1: The FDA conceded that the prohibited ads “do not rely on objective product claims”.

P2: However, they feel that the ads must be controlled because they “create the

impression that smoking…is more prevalent and acceptable in society than it actually is”.

P3: The government cannot criminalize speech or imagery that takes issue with what it

feels should be “acceptable to society”.

P4: (implied) That is what a dictatorship, like Iran, does.

P5: This is not Iran.

P6: There is no evidence to suggest that advertising causes kids to smoke.

P7: The Canadian Supreme Court in 1995, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 1994

and the U.S. Surgeon General in 1989 were all unable to unearth such evidence.

P8: Countries that have totally banned all tobacco advertising- like Norway- still have

teen-age smoking rates higher that in the United States.

P9: The FDA’s own focus groups identified “peer pressure; the desire to do something

they perceived to be an adult activity; and a way to rebel against their parents” as main

reasons for underage smoking.

P10: Advertising was not one of those reasons.

P11: FDA Commissioner David Kessler wrote “a strict application of ” FDA “provisions

would mean, ultimately, removal from the market of tobacco products containing nicotine

at levels that cause or satisfy addiction”

P12: Prohibition of cigarettes as we know them would be the result.

C: The Clinton administration’s stampede to save our kids from Joe Camel runs roughshod

over our most basic civil liberties, will do nothing to reduce teenage smoking and

threatens to actually ban cigarettes as we know them.

Part IV:

This is an inductive argument because it is meant to make the conclusion more

likely. It is a fairly strong argument because there are many plausible reasons with the

understanding that some are controversial and in need of further investigation.

P1: is plausible.

P2: is plausible.

P3: is logical because of the Constitutional right to free speech.

P4: is plausible.

P5: is true.

P6: is controversial but fairly plausible.

P7: seems logical but needs further i

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать