Download Analyzing Fallacies in 'Thank You For Smoking': A Case Study on Tobacco Arguments - Prof. and more Papers Effective Business Communication in PDF only on Docsity! Friday, 17 April COMM 243-502 Thank You For Smoking Analysis It is safe to say that there is much conflict as to whether tobacco causes harm or not between those in tobacco companies and those in the anti-tobacco front. All the possible qualifications of an expected argument can be found in this controversy. First you have those who infer or try to predict what tobacco can cause the human body to do based on observations. Second, there are many statements of personal opinion regarding what tobacco can cause. And most importantly, both sides make assertions that seem to require support in determining the validity of those statements. Whatever the qualification, one can expect arguments to arise when dealing with tobacco. Thank You For Smoking displays many “dos and do not’s” when it comes to arguing a point or claim versus another. When someone who has no prior knowledge in the field of argumentation watches the movie, Nick Naylor seems to make very few flaws in proving his point. Yet, in examining closer I find that Nick’s perception on how to win an argument is flawed. In the argument with his son on chocolate Nick states that, “You don’t have to prove you are right; you just have to prove they’re wrong [the opposition].” This in itself mimics the exact traits of a red herring fallacy. In the opening scene on the talk show he claims that the death of that young boy would only hurt the tobacco companies, and the opposing claims are wrong. This statement moves the audience’s eyes to opposition and away from himself, thus creating a red herring. These are only one of the many red herring fallacies in the movie and it goes unnoticed to the untrained eye. In a Morton 2 professional debate these errors in reasoning would be called out, but in an informal public argument these statements persuade the audience into believing his claim. This is not the only problem Naylor displays throughout his confrontations. His job seems to require him to argue from ignorance. In other words, he believes that smoking does not cause cancer or any other health issues simply because he believes it cannot be proven. This ignorance is used as a defense in many instances throughout the movie. Another fallacy Nick is very fond of is the ad hominem, and is mostly directed toward the Senator. To someone unfamiliar with these terms the argument looks rather effective in turning the tables, but in reality is a sign of immaturity. Despite all Naylor’s errors in reasoning, he is very smart in creating an argument with emotional appeal. Using the attempt on his life in his favor helps him a great deal. Instead of the public despising a “killer,” it is now expressing sympathy towards a man on the news in a hospital bed. As he is interviewed in the hospital bed gathering the viewers’ emotions, Naylor throws in a single cause fallacy to manipulate them when he states that, “Cigarettes saved my life.” Nick Naylor is not the only one making arguments embedded with fallacies. The Senator makes many himself including a couple of bias samples to prove his point while being very redundant. Being redundant is not necessarily a bad thing until it is taken overboard. The Senator seems to over exaggerate a great deal in making his point, and too much of this can cause the opposite effect. One of the worst things he does is to use a bias sample in the final conference. The use of this fallacy proves that the sample is unreliable and can lose the audience’s “vote” all together.
