worksheet
H ALKUBRA
workshop3.docxRead the document “Case Study – FDA Cigarettes” and the short article by Melissa Jenco, “Judge orders FDA to speed up graphics warnings requirements for cigarettes” (http://www.aappublications.org/news/2018/09/05/cigarettelawsuit090518). There is more information available via that report, if you are interested.
Check the link as well as a file
I want you to expand the evaluations for the both of them. ( Argument Against Cigarette Labels, Argument For Cigarette Labels)
1. Argument Against Cigarette Labels
1. The government should not impose its views about label content
2. This legislation violates cigarette companies’ rights to free speech
3. Packaging insults smokers
4. Packaging embarasses smokers
5. Packaging humiliates smokers
6. Packaging discriminates against smokers
7. Thus, graphic images should not be placed on cigarette packages
Evaluation:
In this argument the arguer never states why demeaning smokers is bad, it they included the statement that all humans deserve to be treated with decency and respect, then it may come across as a more complete argument.
Argument For Cigarette Labels
1. Traditional warning labels on cigarette packages have been much too small to offset the emotional appeals and glamorization of smoking in advertising
2. Studies document the effectiveness of more explicit warnings
3. Due to these findings, many other countries have mandated that more package surface area be devoted to health warnings
4. Thus, graphic images should be placed on cigarette packages
Evaluation:
This argument presents in statement number three a fallacy. This fallacy is the bandwagon fallacy. Just because many other countries are operating this way does not mean that more countries should operate this way. Statement number two does not make any point, it just states that there have been studies in general about the subject of smoking or cigarette packaging.
