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 . In these strategies, he reveals the nature persuasions. To gain advantage over his opponents and pave ways for his success in winning the argument, Nick Naylor, the lobbyist for Big Tobacco applies the re-framing strategies. He re-frames most of the conversations in order to promote smoking, win the arguments and change people’s notion about smoking. Nick Naylor’s effective means of interaction portrays that anyone who argues correctly can win an argument. He pointed this out in his interaction with Joey- his son, where he states that the "beauty of an argument …show more content…
An example is when Naylor states that “Big Tobacco is about to launch a $50 million campaign aimed at persuading kids to not smoke." This clue is misleading and distracting to his major arguments which favors smoking. This signifies that he realizes that encouraging everyone to smoke is not healthy, but he needs to chip in some logical arguments to endear himself to the audience. He also applies a red herring fallacy when he emphasized that Vermont cheddar cheese also needs warning signs for raising cholesterol levels, because cholesterol is the “real demonstrated number killer in …show more content…
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
An article that uses a lot of rhetorical devices is Shitty First Drafts by Anne Lamott. The speaker of this article is obviously Anne Lamott; the reader gets to understand her more after she shares some personal experiences. Lamott wants people to know that their first drafts are supposed to be shitty. This article is meant for college students who just finished their first draft and is looking for improvement. The purpose of this whole article is to inform you that your first draft is supposed to be horrible because no one can just pull an amazing paper from no where, not even the people who write for a living. The whole subject is telling you that your first drafts are going to be bad, so make sure to write multiple drafts before you
American musician, Jerry Garcia, states, “Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” This is essentially the underlying principle of comparing two kinds of harmful effects, as one can try outshine the other but will still be detrimental. In the article, “Tune Out, Light Up”, Dave Kopel is trying to persuade readers in the article that watching television is worse than smoking cigarettes. The article poses an overall unsuccessful argument, as it expresses the views thoroughly with certain support and tries to use various appeals but fails to suggest essential evidence and realistic views. This article is trying to show how smoking cigarettes is better than watching television, as it goes into numerous points of how television can destroy many more years off of lives than smoking, making it less preferable than cigarettes. Kopel uses the classical appeals of pathos,
Scientists and lobbyists share a primary purpose; they both serve to influence the status quo. Both Alfred Kinsey, a scientist, and Nick Naylor, a lobbyist, challenge the boundaries of their society. Whereas Kinsey stimulates the sexual aspect of his society, Naylor pokes at the value of ethics in a cigarette consuming society. The representation of argument is apparent in these films; Kinsey argues for a societal change in the awareness and education of human sexuality whereas Nick Naylor defends the cigarette industry as the Vice-President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. In the film Thank You for Smoking and Kinsey, the rhetoric of argumentation is represented by two men that share allegiance to their work; however, the motive behind their work differs in galactic proportions.
In his essay, “How About Low-Cost Drugs for Addicts” (1995), Louis Nizer argues that drugs should be legal and cheap. The author attempts to use all three rhetorical appeals, to show why drugs should be cheaper to drug addicts. First, he uses pathos in paragraph 6. He uses pathos by trying to make the reader afraid, so that the reader agrees with him when he says things like “This is why our citizens are unsafe in broad daylight” also “This is why typewriters and television sets are stolen from offices.” The author wants us to feel some type of fear. Next, Nizer uses logos to support his claim. Nizer uses logos in paragraph 8, 9 and 10. He believes that if drugs were legal children would be exposed to them so much more. He also believes that
When we think of rhetoric, past findings have framed this concept in terms of persuasion and trickery; rarely do we hear about rhetoric in a positive light. However, the concept of rhetoric has evolved from a subgenre of language to a culture and identity. Rhetoric shapes our biases and standpoint, and therefore create a culture of meaning in our lives. Today, I live in a world where rhetoric not only plays a monumental role, but is the actual mechanism that shapes how I see myself and the others around me.
Peter Brimelow’s article “Thank You for Smoking….?” is an essay that looks at a rather extreme perspective on smoking. Brimelow starts off by describing the many actions that are taken against the tobacco industry; he writes that in some states, the government is trying to make the tobacco industry pay certain health care costs. However, he then goes on to state that smoking may actually be good for one’s health. He uses various sources to show that smoking has positive effects on our bodies; he states the decrease in risk in numerous diseases. Brimelow uses medical journals to show that smoking decreases the risk of diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. He also talks about some of the ways smoking enhances certain skills, “A battery of studies show that cigarettes really do stimulate alertness, dexterity and cognitive capacity” (Brimelow 141). Brimelow does pick a tough subject to talk about, but for the most part he does a good job writing his article and distributing information to the reader to support argument.
Smoking affects much more than just your physical appearance. Smoking is a much bigger problem than anyone really thinks it to be. “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure” (Smoking & Tobacco use). Many people smoke and it is slowly affecting their physical appearance, but along with appearance it is affecting their health too. When people smoke, several problems occur such as throat and or lung cancer, bad breath and yellowing and decaying of teeth. Many people are prone to smoking due to being around smokers. The photo below shows a good representation of some of the negative things that smoking can do to your body.
The article makes the audience feel as if they are overlooked by society for the bad habit they have developed, which in turn undermines cigarettes. The Daily Currant portrays Vitarettes as healthy which in humor will never be a fact. Thompson Jr. uses pure facts in his article as a solution to undermine those who use cigarettes as well as the actual cigarette. It gives lead way that herbal cigarettes are a little healthier than actual cigarettes. The undermining however, is the facts claiming it still causes harmful effects to the body. These facts directly make the audience feel guilt of the habit they are trying to overcome. Rhetorical use of satire indirect approaches the audience while facts directly approach the audience. A person in the audience reading The Daily Currant might feel that the habit of smoking is no joking manner and of a personal problem, not meant to be conquered with humor. The article could come across as offensive and not be very effective. A reader of the article “Are Herbal and ‘Natural’ Cigarettes Safer?” might come to the realization of how harmful any cigarette is due to the facts being so direct. Smoking in this manner is not a joke and it’s a harsh reality to read what a bad habit can
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.
Peter Brimelow’s “Thank You for Smoking…?” had me interested from the title alone. This essay lists a few of the benefits that can occur from smoking. Bimelow is aware of the many dangers of smoking as he acknowledges “the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed that ‘second hand smoke’ is a significant risk for nonsmokers and the Food & Drug Administration is making noises about regulating nicotine as a drug” (The Genre of Argument 141). Brimelow’s essay gives some reasons why and how smoking can be beneficial in some small ways. The message Brimelow is trying to get out is that, “smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you” (141). Brimelow uses words and phrases such as “might be” and “some” to narrow down his major claim. Brimelow’s major claim that smoking can be healthy in some ways. In some studies, certain cancers have been shown to appear less in smokers than nonsmokers. This leads us to believe that smoking may be beneficial in some ways. I think this essay is successful because of the evidence presented along with the narrow major claim.
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.
Peter Brimelow is a senior editor for Forbes magazine. The essay was written taken from Forbes magazine (July 4, 1994).
They have typical traits only they are highlighted and exaggerated to provoke humor. The Captain is a perfect example of a stereotypical character representing Big Tobacco. The scene begins in The Club After Nick has just gotten off the plane and his presence in the form of a voice-over enters. In a pan shot, the scene is set with rich men sitting on leather chairs while African Americans serve drinks in their waiter suites.As Nick makes his way through as he gives an overview "The captain is the last great in tobacco, he introduced filters when cigarettes first got slammed by Readers Digest. Later he founded The Academy of Tobacco Studies...here the captain is a legend a self-made man who started with nothing and ended up with everything except evidently a son." in Nicks point of view shot the Captain looks up and says "Nick my boy, just in time for mud. sit down there." The Captain reveals the secret to judo to Nick and follows by telling him how he learned it from Fidel Castro. The captain asks "Do you remember 1952?" Nick responds he wasn 't alive then and the captain goes off to mention how he was in Korea shooting Chinese in that year.In a medium close up shot he states, "Today they are our best customer, next time we won 't have to shoot so many of them will we? ' Nick responds "no sir". The captain goes on to explain how "1952 was the year Reader 's Digest nailed us with the whole health aspect. The goes on and finally asks Nick, "Tell me do you enjoy your current work Nick?" he answers in a medium shot " Yes sir it 's um challenging, If you can do tobacco you can do anything." In this scene it is clear that Nick idolizes not only the whole tobacco system but really also The Captain.He is similar to Nick since both of them are pro tobacco figures and they have both aspire to keep tobacco around. Yet it is also evident that the Captain has usual characteristics that are hightened and comical
Brimelow, Peter. “Thank You for Smoking…?” The Genre of Argument. Ed. Irene L. Clark. Boston Thompson-Heinle, 1998.
The protagonists in the films Kinsey by Bill Condon and Thank You for Smoking by Jason Reitman are two men who are cut from very different styles of cloth. In Kinsey, the titular character uses logical discourse and gathered statistics in an attempt to remove the shackles of moral prudery from the subject of human sexuality for the betterment of humanity. On the other hand, the central character in Thank You for Smoking is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry who uses logical fallacy and rhetoric to obscure the health risks of tobacco use because he is extraordinarily good at it, and additionally he gets paid handsomely. As divergent as these two men are in their intentions, they both show passionate skill in asserting their claims against tough opposition. Moreover, both characters argumentative styles reveal their mutual apprehension of the power that morality and rhetoric hold in shaping public opinion.