Rhetorical Analysis: Thank You For Smoking

1086 Words3 Pages

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 make light of the topic through mockery. 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 from Vermont. Naylor’s audience is the committee and members of the audience including his young son. Naylor is defending a controversial idea with controversial evidence and support, whether it goes against what he believes or not. Naylor’s own morality is called into question. Logos, pathos, Kairos, and ethos, the mainstays of rhetoric, can all be found throughout Naylor’s defense. Rhetorical fallacies can also be found throughout the sequence.

Nick Naylor’s claim was that warning labels should not be put on a product that people already knew that was dangerous. In correlation with Naylor’s claim, Naylor’s warrant seems to be that people should decide for themselves. If someone knows a product is potentially dangerous, it should be up to the consumer to decide whether to use
Also throughout the speech Nick Naylor gives seemingly legitimate arguments to support his cause and Big Tobacco. When the subject of parenting is brought up by the committee Nick Naylor rightly spoke about the topic as he is the father of a young son. Nick Naylor also takes full responsibility for his son’s upbringing. Like when Naylor defends cigarettes and his parenting, Naylor tends to use some fallacies to back up many of his arguments. Naylor has more a claim to having ethos, but is not necessarily the best example of a

Open Document