<Student Name>
<Name and Section # of course>
<Instructor Name>
Introduction
Smoking has very deleterious effects on the human health. Smoking can cause serious lung diseases including lung cancer. A person who is involved in smoking acquires illnesses due to the harmful chemicals. These chemicals are gained inside the body where it affects the blood and other organs particularly lungs. Smoking can cause infections and cancer of lungs. Therefore, smoking can be lethal to human life. In addition to this smoking also affects the persons surrounding the smoker. Passive smoking also has harmful effects on the person as the smoke is inhaled by the non-smokers along with the air. Consequently, smoking affects the non-smokers and causes similar effects which are caused to the smokers. In order to prevent the non-smokers from the dangerous effects of smoking, it should be banned at the public places. Eventually, the person who can be affected through passive smoking can be saved. It is observed that if smoking is banned at public places, the rate of death due to active and passive smoking can be minimized. Moreover, if the tax on cigarettes is elevated then a reduction in its consumption can be obtained. Hence, people can be saved by imposing strict laws against smoking (Levy et al., 2012).
The following report is devised to evaluate the two essays which comprises of arguments in favor and against of the smoking ban at public places. A compare and contrast of the two argumentative essays will be carried out.
Arguments in Favor of the Ban on Smoking
The smoking at public places causes several diseases including heart diseases to the non-smokers. The argument is deductive type as it indicates the 3000 people annually die from lung and respiratory ailments and 22000 nonsmokers die due to the heart diseases world wild. It’s a reality assumption and an authentic argument. However, this does not indicate the non-smokers from public places. Passive smokers which are included in this rate of deaths must have acquired disease from a family member who is a smoker.
Smoking is injurious for the children, fetus, and the expecting mothers. Children death due to the exposure to smoking has been found elevating worldwide. This argument is deductive with example. This argument is based on the value assumption. On the other hand, the fallacy of faulty analogy lies in the statement of combining the ear problems with smoking. Conversely, the children may be exposed to smoking at their living places instead of the public places.
The argument denies the effectiveness of construction of a separate smoking area. Since, the smoke spreads in the air, and a non-smoking area also become contaminated. This argument is an inductive, analogy type with reality assumption. However, the smoking area may be constructed in some buildings which are packed, and the air of the two separated areas does not get mixed.
The argument in favor of non-smokers states that they are offended of smoking because they and their clothes smell smoke due to the exposure to a smoker. This is an inductive argument with example and reality assumption. This seems to be a fallacy of false cause as the clothes would not smell the smoke unless the non-smokers are present near the smokes during smoking. In contradiction, smoke smell cannot be absorbed in the clothes without passing or staying with smokers continuously.
The used cigarettes are dumped without concern, and the fire can be broken out accidently. This fire can cause immense loss to the environment and things at public places. The situation can be disastrous. This argument is an inductive type with value assumption and contains an example type. Conversely, fire cannot be broken out as the used cigarette is not always disposed off carelessly. Therefore, the argument is a fallacy which draws hasty conclusion. However, in the restaurants and other public places, a tray is provided, and smokers usually dispose of their cigarettes in the tray. Hence, in order to prevent the surroundings from catching fire.
Arguments against the Ban on Smoking
The smoking area is assigned for the smokers to smoke without making troubles for the non-smokers. Therefore, such places are constructed away from the public areas in buildings, educational institutions, and restaurants. These areas are only used by the smokers hence if the non-smokers willing pass by these areas or enter into areas then it is their mistake. This statement is a fallacy as it targets the non-smokers with harsh words. Therefore, they should not raise issues pertaining to the smoke and smelly clothes. This argument is an inductive and example type with reality assumption. However, the counter argument exists that the smoke from these designated areas gets mixed with the air in areas of non-smokers. Fallacy in this argument exists that people smoke at designated areas only. The smokers are visualized smoking at every public place spot even inside the office building.
The professionals and employees use smoking as the stress-releasing activity. The stress level is maintained by smoking as it affects the nervous system, and the employees feel the less pressure of the stress. Consequently, they can perform well in the project. On the other hand, if they quit smoking then the performance might get affected. This argument is an inductive type with example and value assumption. However, this is a fallacy of a hasty conclusion as the employees are never relieved after the consumption of cigarettes. Conversely, the health is compromised in smoking for decreasing the stress level. The employees are less concerned about their own health.
The argument mentions the rights of the smokers since they do not harm other people and strictly follow the disposing of cigarette and refrain from smoking in front of children. Consequently, they do not affect the non-smokers so; they can continue smoking as it cannot stop easily. The fallacy of false analogy in the argument regarding the payment of tobacco tax existed. This is an inductive argument with the analogy and contains value assumptions,
If the ban on smoking is imposed at public places then eventually, the smokers will smoke more at the homes. This would cause the harmful effects for the family members hence the non-smokers would be affected by any means. This argument is a deductive type with value assumption. It contains analogy type of argument as the alcohol consumption along with smoking is concerned. Also, fallacy of two wrongs makes one right is present regarding the use of smoking and alcohol at home.
The pubs and bars would be affected economically as the smokers would not visit these places for smoking. There would be a large loss to the pubs and bars. This argument is an inductive and example type with reality assumption. Pubs and bars can be at loss due to the ban on smoking and may get alleviation in their finances. However, the loss of life caused by the smoking to smokers and non-smokers would be reduced in this way. It is based on the fallacy of false cause since, the ban on smoking will also put a ban on these pubs and bars. Therefore, they would be shut down.
The police would never be able to maintain the ban at all public places, some small places would be ignored, and the activity of smoking would continue there. Hence, smoking would not be nip in the bud, and the problem would persist. The argument is an inductive type of argument with example type and reality assumption. On the other hand, if the non-smokers complain regarding the activity of smoking then an action might be taken against it.
Compare and Contrast of the Two Essays
The arguments used in both essays are similar as they are composed under same assumption. The arguments have the similar aim which is related to the non-smokers. The non-smokers get affected at public places. Therefore, the arguments are in favor for the non-smokers and against the facts that non-smokers are passively affected due to the smoking.
The arguments differ in many aspects as the arguments devised against the ban on smoke are based on inductive type of the arguments. Hence, the arguments lack any proof or guarantee the arguments. On the other hand, the arguments composed in favor of the ban on smoking contain the deductive type which gives the proof regarding the harmful effects of smoking to the non-smokers.
Conclusion
The arguments against the ban on smoking seem to be weak as they do not comprise of the validity and proof. Moreover, they lack the discussion related to the health problems that arises to the non-smokers as well as the smokers. Therefore, the essay containing the arguments in favor of the ban on smoking is stronger.
Reference
Levy, D. T., Boyle, R. G., & Abrams, D. B. (2012). The role of public policies in reducing smoking: the Minnesota SimSmoke tobacco policy model. American journal of preventive medicine, 43(5), S179-S186. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379712005466 on 20th December 2014.
