Analysis Of Stanley S Scott's Smokers Get A Raw Deal
A fallacy that is seen continuously throughout the article is scare tactics. Through scaring the audience and appealing to their sense of vulnerability Scott offers a scapegoat, therefore, making his argument seem wholesome. For example, “If you happen to enjoy …show more content…
For example, “Ever since people began smoking, smokers and nonsmokers have been able to live with one another using common courtesy and common sense” (Scott 18-21). By generalizing, Scott tries to convince the audience that discrimination towards smokers appeared out of nowhere and is unjustified. It is questionable to assume that all smokers and nonsmokers coexisted and had no conflict with one another. Furthermore, if there was no conflict with smoking then how did the anti-smoker organization rise in the first place? In similar fashion Scott then uses another hasty generalization, to exemplify his displeasure with the discrimination of smokers. As stated, “responsible organizations devoted to the “public interest” are encouraging the harassment of those who smoke” (Scott 28-31). Consequently, Scott goes on to enumerate and bash some organizations that he believes are causing tension between smokers and nonsmokers. As a result, he hopes to persuade the audience to be against and question these organizations. Using this generalization is prejudicial because not all anti-smoking organizations reinforce the idea of harassment. As a result, the fallacies used ravage Scott’s argument.
Overall, the effectiveness of Scott’s argument is direct and potent, however, the repetitive usage of fallacies relinquishes any trace of credibility. Consequently, the fallacies used in this article would alarm people in today’s world since most people do not verify whether or not what they are reading is accurate. However, as “compelling” as the article is it would not cause measures to be taken or cause a great impact; life would go on. After all, fallacies are fallacies, no matter how