Saturday, March 9, 2019

BCOM 275 Article Rebuttal Essay

Smoking discards, specifically in domain places, has been a topic of conceive for several years now. This debate has been originated primarily from medical or health-related origins. many an(prenominal) consent felt strongly against the ban of smoking in public places. Although, almost an equal amount of people curb the smoking ban. This publisher will acknowledge the pros to proceeding with the smoking ban to rebuttal the aim presented in the article titled, The slipperiness against smoking bans by Thomas A. litre and analyze the reliability, credibility, and sensibleity of the data used to support his argument. According to cubic decimeter (2012), Government-imposed smoking bans be unwise. Risk found argument ar insufficient because the slight happens associated with ETS raisenot justify the substantial privateness intrusion occasioned by sweeping smoking bans (p 34).The authors support against the smoking ban is based on the fact that the storys regarding the need for the ban due to the sum up of health care cost for the consumer and those effected by the second-hand smoke. cubic decimeter supports his argument based on the findings of a comprehensive study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. The study states, smoking credibly has the effect of reducing overall healthcare costs because stag partys die precedent than nonsmokers. The studys authors concluded that in a population in which no one smoked, health care costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers (Government-imposed smoking bans are unwise, 2012, p 36). Although, this data is credible based on its source, this information cannot wholly be deemed valid based on no stated facts to compare healthcare costs of the nonsmokers. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning (Cheesebro, T.,OConnor, L., & Rios, F., 2010). in that location are four types of common logical fal lacies, which are faulty causation, sharp induction, either/or thinking, slippery slope and faulty parity. The justification based on the other data is an example of a hasty generalization and faulty equivalence.A hasty generalization occurs when a few examples are selected to represent the whole of the conclusion (Cheesebro, T., OConnor, L., & Rios, F., 2010). By committing to these generalizations, your conclusions may be incorrect because you are only acknowledging the data that will solely support your argument. The authors argument is also a faulty comparison because he treats the unique situations the same. He strongly believes that there is no pregnant difference in the costs of health care in comparison to those who do not smoke. But the author fails to mention the health effects of second hand smoke and why it should be banned in public places In contrast, smoking bans in public places should be employ because there are many studies that reveal that there is a truly problem regarding exposure to second hand smoke. According to the CDC (2012), Since 1964, 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from exposure to secondhand smoke. That statement alone, which is evidence based, is a valid argument why smoking in public places should be banned. Non-smokers should not have to be victims caused by careless smokers who are more interested in feeding their addiction and pleasures. It is intrusion of someones privacy if they do not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke. humans places refers to as restaurants, parks, multiunit housing and casinos etc. For children, secondhand smoke exposure can contribute to respiratory and ear infections and higher risk of sudden sister death syndrome. For adults, it can cause lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases. With that being said, if we take up not to smoke due to the health effects and increased risk of death, why should we forced to go down with the smokers? We have a woof and it should be respected. If these he alth conditions can be caused by secondhand smoke alone, consider what effects smoking has on a smokers body. As mentioned earlier, those who do smoke die earlier. So how can the statement regarding no difference in health care costs surrounded by a smoker and non-smoker be valid? In conclusion, due to the evidence-based fearful health effects of secondhand smoke, smoking in public places should be banned. There is no justification for someone who chooses to live a bouncing lifestyle in order to live longer,to have a smoker determine how long they should live or what quality of life they should have.ReferencesCheesebro, T., OConnor, L., & Rios, F. (2010). Communicating in the workplace. UpperSaddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.Lambert, T. A. (2007). The case against smoking bans. Regulation, 29(4), 34-40.Retrieved on March 7, 2014 from,http// and Tobacco. (2012). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrievedon March 6, 2014 from,http//

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.