Persuasion by argument can be tricky. Without being critical, one’s opinion can be swayed by a falsely constructed argument loosely based on logic and heavily tinted with fallacious, emotional and biased statements, or by an illogically constructed text which ignores counterarguments and rebuttals. In this paper, the author will examine an argumentative text entitled “Smokers Get a Raw Deal” by Stanley Scott to point out its pitfalls and main weakness. The author suggests that logical fallacies are the main source of weakness of the text.
Scott aims to persuade the readers that smokers are being discriminated. He claims that this new form of discrimination is tantamount to the violations committed against civil and voting rights. The violent nature of discrimination according to him is perpetrated by overzealous anti-smokers who are imposing their beliefs on society. He says that smokers used to get along with non-smokers until the enforcement of laws restricting smoking began to cause strife between the two. Supported even by civic organizations, the discrimination against smokers has reached preposterous levels. Scott concludes with a bleak projection of the future in which innocuous activities are no loner socially acceptable. He suggests that Americans should resist this new form of discrimination as they have rejected racism, and religious and sexual bigotry.
Scott opens the essay by invoking two major discrimination issues in American society—the violation against civil and voting rights. By invoking these two weighty issues, Scott parallels the smoker’s discrimination with issues that have dramatically altered the course of American history in order to evoke the sense of urgency in his advocacy. However, this connection is a hasty generalization because there is no sufficient evidence that will conveniently link smoker’s discrimination with these forms of oppression whose ramifications in the lives of people are much wider in scope. Scott makes another blatant logical fallacy at the beginning of the essay by claiming that smokers are deprived of basic civil rights such as housing and employment and freedom in public places. This argument, of course, begs the question because there is no sufficient proof that smokers’ civil rights are indeed curtailed to such an extent.
Scott attempts to once again insinuate the urgency of calling attention to this new form of discrimination by saying that smokers are treated fairly before through “common courtesy and common sense” and that this situation has drastically changed (Scott 174). By using the phrase “ever since,” Scott makes a false argument by overstating the facts. Again, this argument puts on Scott the burden of presenting ample proof which he fails to do in the essay. His overstatement continues by citing unqualified claims that smokers, implying each one of them, share the same sentiment with him. He uses the emotionally-laden phrase “unenforceable law” without explicating how this is so (Scott 174).
He commits another argumentative fallacy in enumerating police blotters across the State in order to make concrete instances for his arguments. In listing these instances, Scott suggests that the worst is yet to come if people do not take action against smoker’s discrimination. This is a case of the fallacy of slippery slope in which one suggests that one action leads to another. In this particular example, Scott aims to reach the conclusion that because of these incidents, which could well have been isolated, the violent acts against smokers will intensify. This makes his argumentation ring with propaganda.
Scott continues with another overstated fact pertaining to the curtailment of smoker’s “basic freedoms” (Scott 174). As with the previous statements, he fails to qualify his claim by citing what basic freedoms are curtailed exactly. There are, of course, a number of basic liberties which antismoking rules do not necessarily affect, such as rights to education, speech and suffrage. Are all these civil rights included in the restrictions against smoking? By unqualified statements and unelaborated claims, Scott commits the fallacy of overgeneralization.
He then proceeds with another blatant error in argumentation. Scott attempts to predict a bleak future wherein all kinds of harmless activities are prohibited. He mentions that if smoker’s discrimination is allowed to spread, soon eating ice cream or sky diving will be illegal. There are two fallacious arguments in this statement. First, assuming that violence against smokers are consistently true in all confrontations between smokers and non-smokers, it is still not argumentatively sound to claim that these acts will spill over to other kinds of activities and wreak the same havoc. This is a case of slippery slope. Scott assumes that allowing violence against smokers will lead to other forms of violence. Second, Scott falsely parallels smoking to activities that are completely different in nature. Although eating ice cream and cookies may indeed lead to obesity and extreme sports may be fatal, it is not the same as smoking which affects not only the person smoking but also those around him. There is a logical and factual basis for prohibiting smokers in public, but Scott ignores this. He concludes the essay with a clincher which happens to be another case of fallacious argument. His statement “discrimination is discrimination” is a case of forced hypothesis (Scott 175). Because he fails to provide sufficient proof about the curtailment of civil rights or the instances of violence, it is hard to accept that prohibiting smokers in public is indeed a form of discrimination. However, in the conclusion, Scott forces to the readers that it is, in fact, discrimination, failing to address other important claims. This statement is also an overgeneralization because not all forms of discrimination are one and the same; it is a complex issue that involves a wide range of implications.
By dissecting Scott’s arguments, we reveal how the essay is more like propaganda than a sound argumentation. The series of logical fallacies which he commits weakens his arguments about the discrimination against smokers.
Work Cited
Scott, Stanley. “Smokers Get a Raw Deal.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to
Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Eds. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau.
Boston, Bedford, 2005. 174-175.
