Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical questions about thank you for smoking
Critiques of "thank you for smoking
Critiques of "thank you for smoking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critical questions about thank you for smoking
A Critique of “Thank You for Smoking. . .?"
Peter Brimelow is a senior editor for Forbes magazine. The essay was written taken from Forbes magazine (July 4, 1994).
Peter Brimelow’s “Thank You for Smoking” is a misleading argument which has very little precise evidence and illustrates a weak argument. The essay is about how smoking in some small ways, can be good for you. (Brimelow). In his claim it sounds like he isn’t sure of it himself because he used “might be” and “some” which are not strong argumentative words. When stating a major claim it has to be strong and get the message clear. It is supported by logic and reason, not by emotional rhetoric. (Clark 5).
Brimelow’s rebuttal talks about the Surgeon General and how he has determined smoking is not at all dangerous to your health. A rebuttal points out instances in which the claim or warrant might not be true or ways the audience might object to what the author is arguing. He goes on to say that 400,000 deaths are related to smoking each year. His rebuttal to this is comparing smoking with driving. He goes on to say that driving causes 40,000 deaths in one year. These two numbers comparing the number of deaths caused my smoking and car accidents are not even close to comparison. Another car can collide with them or bad roads can cause accidents, while smoking is totally preventable and can be controlled by the person.
Value is what the author believes strongly in and in this essay freedom is Brimelow’s value stated. I think it was clever using freedom to compare because it appeals to people and it gets their attention and keeps it. He says driving cars is dangerous and people have the freedom to drive cars then they should have the freedom to smoke where they want. Is it the smoker’s right to come into a room full of non-smokers and light up a cigarette? Should all the non-smokers have to bear the smoke or have to leave because they have a right to smoke anywhere they want. Smokers have the right to smoke but only where smoking is permitted. If they want to harm themselves let them do it alone and not harm people who want to breathe clean air.
On September 10, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt help transferred a $20 million from Emergency Relief Act funds to the department of interior for construction of Friant Dam. The following year coming, he signed the act. Projected cost of the Friant Dam and Reservoir came in at $14 million, the Friant-Kern Canal came in at $26 million, and the Madera Canal was $3 million. The dam was built by the United State Bureau of Reclamation and the Faint dam was completed in 1942.
Thank You for Smoking Rhetorical Analysis: Thank you for not smoking. The film Thank You for Smoking is an obscure jesting that follows a petitioner, Nick Naylor, for the tobacco industry. Murky comedies take a grave topic, and light the topic through mockery. A worthy example of rhetoric can be found in Thank You for Smoking, during a scene where Nick Naylor delivers an argument against putting a skull and crossbones label on every pack of cigarettes. Senator Finistirre does this during a hearing in front of a congressional committee lead by Vermont.
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
Windsor Dialogue Commission: Report to the 214th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia. Windsor Dialogue Commission, January 2009.
Throughout the essay, he was unsure of which side he should have been on. He discussed his opinion and stories that support both arguments. A smoker knows the effects of smoking, as well as the obvious outcomes. Some smoke for the sake of smoking and most continue to smoke due to the effects of nicotine. Everyone seems to have an opinion on smoking, regardless of whether they do or don't.
“Crusades.” Gale Student Resources in Context. Detroit: Gale,2010. Student Resources in Context. Web. 24 Mar.2014
Peter Green’s, Alexander of Macedon, takes us on a journey to Ancient Macedonia, to the early beginnings of Alexander’s life right up to his controversial death. This material is a revision and expansion from Green’s book, “Alexander the Great” originally published in 1970. In this detailed narrative of Alexander the Great, Green helps the reader to better understand Alexander’s life and the world he grew up in. Green begins this historical biography with Alexander’s father, Philip II of Macedon, and how he came into power.
Rust, M. (1998, August 3). "Public Welfare for Billionaires." Insight on the News. v14 n28.
Alexander the Great was only 20 years when his father Philip of Macedon died. Even though he was a young man, he had an unusual talent for politics and military tactics. After his father’s death, Alexander moved to continue Philip’s invasion of Persia. In the ten years of his war campaigns, Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world. (Judge & Langdon, 2012.)
In the film Thank you for smoking, Nick Naylor- the main character of the film employs rhetorical devices such as re-framing, hyperbole and numerous logical fallacies to win his argument
Alexander the Great, born in July of the year 356 B.C. was the ruler and king of the Greek Kingdom known as Macedonia. In his early years, Alexander was trained as a fighter by his tutor, Aristotle. He trained with his mentor until the age of 16, when his father Phillip II was assassinated, and he inherited his throne. With a massive army at his hand, Alexander started his conquest to capture the Persian Empire, and "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea.”
Although reality TV has the word “real” in the title, most reality television shows are few and far between when it comes to the truth of what actually happened. In a survey taken, people were asked about their age, gender, favorite reality TV show, and if they were religious or not. Through the survey much was revealed about the demographics about male and females between the age of 18 and 28 who mostly attend NJC. Most of the people surveyed attend Northeastern Junior College, a school with a conservative background, which plays a role in what reality TV shows they watched.
Heckel, Waldemar and Ryan Jones and Christa Hooks. Macedonian warrior: Alexander’s elite infantryman. Osprey: Oxford. 2006.
If we start letting simple freedoms go, we could lose some major ones. Works Cited Huxley, Aldous. A. & Co. Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.
Thank you for smoking is a satirical comedy about a lobbyist whose job is to promote tobacco use at a time when the disease burden secondary to smoking threatens to cripple the nation. The film presents how industries, media and the government interact to influence the consumers’ decision. While the use of rhetoric, such as fallacies and twisted truths, is evident throughout the film, it is most evident midway when the chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, assists his son with his assignment. The son, Joey Naylor, enquires why the American government is the best and in response, the father argues it is because of America’s ‘endless appeals system’ (Thank you for smoking). His response seamlessly captures the tone of the movie as much as it represents the extensive use of a combination of fallacious arguments and twisted truths. This essay attempts to analyse the use of fallacies and twisted truths to appeal to the emotion of the