Afaf Javed
Professor Karen Springsteen
English 1010
31 October 2014
A Rhetorical Analysis of Thank You for Smoking
Anti-smoking and anti-tobacco commercials are acknowledged more in today’s society. Their main goal is to notify the audience about the negative effects of smoking. These commercials can have a huge impact on the tobacco companies. In order to defend their products, the companies hire lobbyists that aim to retain their manufactured goods. In the film, “Thank You for Smoking”, written and directed by Jason Reitman, Aaron Eckhart performed as a lobbyist (Nick Naylor) for the tobacco industry. Throughout the film, Nick Naylor, the main character, supports smoking cigarettes. He uses rhetorical appeals to defend the undefended and
…show more content…
compute a significant debate on a matter of smoking. An illustration of rhetoric can be found in the closing scene of Thank You for Smoking, when Nick Naylor declares an argument in front of Senator Finistirre’s Congressional hearing on the suggested skull and crossbones warning label on every carton of cigarettes.
He uses logos, logical reasoning, in this scene as a rhetorical device. The subject of this argument was putting a skull on a pack of cigarette. The warning label, skull and the crossbones, will uncover the poisonous, long-term and short-term effects on an individual when manipulated. Nick Naylor had a good logic when he delivered his argument on in front of the senators. He started his argument by claiming that the warning label should not be printed on a pack of cigarettes because people already knew that smoking has an effect on our heath. Therefore, this picture will be …show more content…
useless. Mr. Naylor has a significant understanding of logos as he takes a stand, by using logical reasoning, in his hearing. He also stated that American costumers already know the effects of smoking, but will still choose to smoke. So. It should be a personal decision whether or not to purchase them. Nick Naylor concludes that if cigarettes should have warning labels, than all the destructive goods such as automobiles, airplanes, and cheese should have a label. Since flying a playing or driving a car also has an insecurity related with it. He specifies by saying that cheese can amplify cholesterol and leads to health problems and heart attack. Thus, these products should also be labelled to warn the consumers. The argument delivered by Nick Naylor was not only for the members of the committee but it was also associated with the audience in that room. While his argument on the warning label, he stated that education and parenting are the primary basis for the teens to acknowledge the side effects of smoking. It is upon the guardians to teach their children about the negative effects that occurs after the usage of tobacco. Mr. Naylor used a concept of pathos, emotional, when he accounted himself for parenting his son, Joey. This element of pathos helped him appeal the audience’s emotions, by mentioning how parenting plays a role in this controversial issue. The goal of the argument through the hearing was to win in terms of big tobacco industries.
Nick Naylor made it possible by using his wise words and good sense of logic. He believes that our gestures and tone can be understandable and demonstrates in the hearing. The way Nick Naylor turned towards his audience and casually asked a question that who thinks smoking is not dangerous. He used this body movement because he realizes that everyone is aware of the negative effects of smoking. His tone is very impassioned and speaks with a lot of persuasion. Also, Mr. Naylor’s tone was very conceited when he spoke to the members of committee. His facial expressions, for example smirking, revealed that he hold himself honorable than the committee. Nick Naylor stated that one has to be superior at talking which helps an individual to become a strong debater. He proved that by spinning all the information to get the audience agree with him. He was also told to stick to the issue when the senators noticed Nick Naylor going off topic. His reasoning surely indicates a logical thinking, and was eventually successful in his
objective. In conclusion, the closing scene of Thank You for Smoking was filled with rhetoric techniques used by Nick Naylor in his argument. His good sense of argument made this controversial issue easy to argue. The rhetoric used by Mr. Naylor is what helped him become a successful lobbyist. Jason Reitman victoriously educate the tobacco lobby the character Nick Naylor, played by Aaron Eckhart. This film enables our audience to respect the other side of anti-tobacco commercials they see on television.
In the article “Dude You’re a Fag: Adolescent Homophobia” the author uses pathos and logos to convey the audience the main point of her article. Rhetorical modes such as exemplification and description are used. C.J. Pascoe is trying to argue that the word “fag” or “faggot is not mainly used as a homophobic slur within high school boys, but more commonly used to describe unmasculinity.
In the book Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer wrote about Christopher McCandless, a nature lover in search for independence, in a mysterious and hopeful experience. Even though Krakauer tells us McCandless was going to die from the beginning, he still gave him a chance for survival. As a reader I wanted McCandless to survive. In Into the Wild, Krakauer gave McCandless a unique perspective. He was a smart and unique person that wanted to be completely free from society. Krakauer included comments from people that said McCandless was crazy, and his death was his own mistake. However, Krakauer is able to make him seem like a brave person. The connections between other hikers and himself helped in the explanation of McCandless’s rational actions. Krakauer is able to make McCandless look like a normal person, but unique from this generation. In order for Krakauer to make Christopher McCandless not look like a crazy person, but a special person, I will analyze the persuading style that Krakauer used in Into the Wild that made us believe McCandless was a regular young adult.
The Letter from Birmingham Jail was written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in April of 1963. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of several civil rights activists who were arrested in Birmingham Alabama, after protesting against racial injustices in Alabama. Dr. King wrote this letter in response to a statement titled A Call for Unity, which was published on Good Friday by eight of his fellow clergymen from Alabama. Dr. King uses his letter to eloquently refute the article. In the letter dr. king uses many vivid logos, ethos, and pathos to get his point across. Dr. King writes things in his letter that if any other person even dared to write the people would consider them crazy.
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.
“It takes someone strong to make someone strong.” The Procter and Gamble Company, better known as P&G, proves just that in one of their most recent commercials, “Thank You, Mom”. P&G manufactures household, personal, and laundry cleaning products all over the world. With that being said, nearly 100 days before the 2016 Olympic games in Rio, P&G released yet another heartwarming commercial thanking moms for all they do. In this commercial, P&G uses, pathos, tone in music, and ethos to capture their audience’s attention and effectively promote their brand.
Pollan’s article provides a solid base to the conversation, defining what to do in order to eat healthy. Holding this concept of eating healthy, Joe Pinsker in “Why So Many Rich Kids Come to Enjoy the Taste of Healthier Foods” enters into the conversation and questions the connection of difference in families’ income and how healthy children eat (129-132). He argues that how much families earn largely affect how healthy children eat — income is one of the most important factors preventing people from eating healthy (129-132). In his article, Pinsker utilizes a study done by Caitlin Daniel to illustrate that level of income does affect children’s diet (130). In Daniel’s research, among 75 Boston-area parents, those rich families value children’s healthy diet more than food wasted when children refused to accept those healthier but
Today’s economy and the environment are hurting due to the lack of nurture we have been providing. Conventional farming rules the world of agriculture, but not without a fight from organic farming. Organic farming is seen as the way of farming that might potentially nurture our nature back to health along with the added benefit of improving our own health. With her piece “Organic farming healthier, more efficient than Status Quo,” published in the Kansas State Collegian on September 3, 2013, writer Anurag Muthyam brings forth the importance behind organic farming methods. Muthyam is a senior at Kansas State University working towards a degree in Management. This piece paints the picture of how organic farming methods
In a quote by John Mill, “Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.” Everyone’s life is precious, but at what price? Is it okay to let a murderer to do as they please? Reader, please take a moment and reflect on this issue. The issue will always be a conflict of beliefs and moral standards. The topic
In a persuasive essay, rhetorical appeals are a very important tool to influence the audience toward the author’s perspective. The three rhetorical appeals, which were first developed by Aristotle, are pathos, logos, and ethos. Pathos appeals to the emotions of the audience, logos appeals to the facts or evidence and ethos exhibits the credibility of the writer.
The movie trailer “Rio 2”, shows a great deal of pathos, ethos, and logos. These rhetorical appeals are hidden throughout the movie trailer; however, they can be recognized if paying attention to the details and montage of the video. I am attracted to this type of movies due to the positive life messages and the innocent, but funny personifications from the characters; therefore, the following rhetorical analysis will give a brief explanation of the scenes, point out the characteristics of persuasive appeals and how people can be easily persuaded by using this technique, and my own interpretation of the message presented in the trailer.
Rhetorical Analyze on the song “Fix You” by Coldplay The text that I chose to analyze is the song “Fix You” by Coldplay because the song is very meaningful and it is a very relatable song. The song “Fix You” takes a tragic event and turns it into a beautiful melody that anyone who has gone through a difficult event can relate too. The song “Fix You” allows anyone who hears it feel a personal connection even though it wasn’t written with that specific person in mind. The song “Fix You” pulls at one's emotional heart strings because the text takes on my takes on every different meaning to everyone who hears the song even though it's the same words.
Artificial intelligence should not be continued. Artificial intelligence has many benefits to your society, humans and AI will eventually begin to replace people’s jobs, they have no emotions, and they will outsmart humans so we will not be able to control them.
Nick’s professional presentation of himself and his talents in persuasion also adds credibility to his appeal. Nick starts his argument by appealing to the crowd’s emotion, when he pointed that “few people on this planet know what it is to be truly despised”, he then asks his audience if they blame these set of people (Can you blame them? Nick asks) this is Pathos. He lays himself as an example of such people (Ethos). Nick also points out a fact (Logos) in the opening scene when he declares that Erhardt Von Grupten Mund has “been testing the link between nicotine and lung cancer for 30 years and hasn 't found any conclusive result”. Nick logically argues that if the teenage boy with cancer dies they will lose customer. This is a fact
Jonathan Kozol revealed the early period’s situation of education in American schools in his article Savage Inequalities. It seems like during that period, the inequality existed everywhere and no one had the ability to change it; however, Kozol tried his best to turn around this situation and keep track of all he saw. In the article, he used rhetorical strategies effectively to describe what he saw in that situation, such as pathos, logos and ethos.
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.