Search for:

Posted on March 19th, 2013, by

It proves beyond a doubt that smoking has a negative impact on human health. However, people keep smoking regardless of risks and threats they expose their healthy to and the health of other people. In this regard, the ban of smoking in public places is a reasonable decision that can minimize the negative impact of smoking on people. At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that smoking can have a significant impact on non-smokers, who are located close to the place when other people smoke. In such a way, the ban of smoking in public places will protect the public, including both smokers and non-smokers because the former will not smoke so frequently as they used to, whereas the latter will not be exposed to the smoke in public places. Therefore, the ban of smoking will prevent the negative impact of smoking on health of many people, whereas smokers will consider whether to carry on smoking or to become excluded in their smoking.

The ban of smoking in public places will have a positive impact on health of people because it reduces the amount of smoking. In actuality, smoking is banned legally in many countries and people obey to legal norms that have a positive impact on their health. The ban of smoking in public places will solve the problem of smoking and its negative impact on human health. Moreover, the ban of smoking in public places is necessary because people need to be protected from the exposure to smoke. Therefore, the ban of smoking in public places is the only way to stop the epidemic of smoking and its negative effects on human health.

The fallacy of sweeping generalization The ban of smoking in public places will have a positive impact on health of people because it reduces the amount of smoking – the ban of smoking in public places will decrease the exposure of non-smokers to smoke and prevent them from risks associated with smoking or exposure to smoke, whereas smokers will still suffer from smoking, although they are likely to smoke less.

Appeal to law – In actuality, smoking is banned legally in many countries and people obey to legal norms that have a positive impact on their health the argument implies that legislation is a moral imperative.

Appeal to probability – The ban of smoking in public places will solve the problem of smoking and its negative impact on human health the ban of smoking could solve the problem of smoking but it will not necessarily put the end to smoking or stop its negative impact on health because smokers are always exposed to negative effects of smoking on their health.
Fallacy of necessity – Moreover, the ban of smoking in public places is necessary because people need to be protected from the exposure to smoke the ban of smoking is not a necessity as well as it will necessarily imply the need of people to ban smoking in public places. Instead, the ban of smoking in public places is rather grounded on cultural norms of the society and consciousness of people.

Denying the antecedent – Therefore, the ban of smoking in public places is the only way to stop the epidemic of smoking and its negative effects on human health In fact, the ban of smoking is not the only way to stop the epidemic of smoking.
REFERENCES
Bizzell, P. and B. Herzberg. (2005). The Rhetorical Tradition-Readings from Classical Times to the Present. New York: Allyson and Beacon.
Carney, T. F. (1972). Content analysis: A technique for systematic inference from communications. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.

Posted in Term paper writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





0 Comments