The Smoking Ban: Arguments Comparison

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Arguments against Banning Smoking
Arguments for Banning Smoking
Comparison between the Two Essays
The contrast between the Two Essays
Conclusion

Introduction

The proposed analysis is aimed at comparing and contrasting two essays devoted to a similar theme – the smoking ban. The authors try to address the problem from different perspectives and support their ideas in the most efficient way.

Thus, the key emphasis of the analysis will be put on the argumentative basis that these essays have along with its consistency and logical relevance.

Arguments against Banning Smoking

The first argument against banning smoking employs the idea that smoking in specially designated areas cannot do harm to the health of non-smokers as the latter are supposed to avoid these areas. It is an inductive type of argument – the generalized conclusion relies upon a preceding series of specific arguments.

The second argument suggests that banning smoking is likely to have a negative impact on employees’ productivity. This argument shows a fallacy of generalization – it promptly switches from the assumption that some workers smoke to reduce stress to the conclusion that employees will work worse if they do not smoke.

The third argument consists of a series of relatively unconnected statements. The key points of this argument suggest that banning smoking will violate smokers’ rights, yet, it will not make them give up the habit.

The next argument suggests that banning smoking will increase the general consumption of alcohol. This statement might be referred to as the fallacy as the final conclusion is driven on the basis of a couple of ungrounded assumptions.

The subsequent argument insists on the negative effect that banning smoking will have from an economic perspective. It is an inductive argument – first, it refers to the financial losses that bars and restaurants will essentially bear; then, it develops the idea about generally negative economic outcomes.

The last reason suggests that the ban will not work properly as the major part of people will ignore it. The argument might be characterized as a personal opinion, as it is not clear what the underpinning reasoning is.

Arguments for Banning Smoking

The first argument in favor of the smoking ban provides a rationale for the harm that secondhand smoking causes. In the meantime, there is no alignment between smoking and the scope of the impact it has over non-smokers, so the argument is not complete.

The second statement is, likewise, devoted to the elucidation of the secondhand smoking consequences. Meanwhile, there is still no connection indicated between smoking in public places and secondhand smoking.

Another argument supporting the smoking ban provides some statistical data related to the cases of infection in children caused by secondhand smoking. As well as the previous two arguments, this statement does not show the interconnection between smoking in public places and children’s secondhand smoking.

The fourth reason explains the spread of smoke and criticizes the functionality of smoking and non-smoking areas in public places. This argument is based on the metaphoric example – it draws parallels between spreading smoke and coloring water.

The next reason supporting the smoking ban emphasizes the unpleasant effect that non-smokers experience due to the spread of smoke in public places. The argument is of deductive character – it begins with a general statement and narrows to a particular example of smoky clothes.

The last argument focuses on the risks related to smoking. Contrary to the previous argument, it is of inductive character – it starts with a particular example of fires and generalizes the idea about the harmful environmental effect.

Comparison between the Two Essays

On the face of it, the essays look rather identical than different. They follow a typical essay structure and are relatively similar in terms of the language style. Moreover, the essays employ different types of arguments in order to support their ideas. Thus, there are arguments based on induction, deduction, and examples in both papers.

In addition, the authors stick to a concise, logical structure so that, in general, the ideas are clearly outlined.

Moreover, the authors tend to avoid judgmental remarks and critics towards the opposite point of view. As a result, their essays create a favorable expression from an ethical standpoint.

The contrast between the Two Essays

In the meantime, there is a series of distinguishing features that make the essays different. Thus, for instance, the first essay fails to provide a concise conclusion – the following passage is, in fact, another argument against the smoking ban.

The second essay, in its turn, has no drawbacks from the structural perspective; yet, its arguments are weaker. Hence, the author of the essay employs a large scope of statistical data, meanwhile, failing to align it to the general string of logic. In addition, some of the arguments, in the second essay, seem to represent one and the same idea, re-phrased and complemented by some minor details.

Finally, the authors’ manner is slightly different as well – whereas the first essay is more restrained and concise, the second author seems to be more emotional and preoccupied with the subject.

Conclusion

As a result, the analysis of the two essays has shown that the first paper offers more consistent reasoning. Despite the evident drawbacks in the essay’s structure, its author has managed to provide a persuasive rationale for the advanced point of view.

The arguments of the second essay are also logically relevant, though, in some cases, they seem to be not aligned to the core thesis.

Click Here To Order Now!