Thank you for smoking Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Thank you for smoking - Movie Review ExampleThis depicts a frame of cut offs character and probably explains the reason as to why he does non lose arguments. This is because he reframes the argument till he wins. Also the film highlights a major critique posed by the society. These are the powers which run the government and the industry and are engrossed in playing games rather than bothering to the highest degree the stakes. In the talk show, Nick wins the argument by announcing the launch of a $50 million grounds to dissuade teenagers from smoking. However, the Captain when hearing about this campaign remarks I hope the campaign is not also effectiveThe Captain just hopes that the campaign does not effectively stop teenagers from being aware of cigarettes and not even start smoking. The satirical comedy shows the American Government also trying to win its admit argument with the senator Sen Ortolan Finistirre is the crusader against smoking. The senator further laments after Nick is kidnapped and then laments because he survived the attack. Fallacies apply by Nick Another conversation between a father and a son in California, where Nick coaches Joey the manner in which one has to win an argument. The setting is for a basic argument as to whether chocolate is good or vanilla. When Joey supports chocolate by remarking that chocolate is what he needs, Nick reframes the argument by retorting surface I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I suppose that we need freedom. This ostentations the delusion of trigger-happy herring. In this kind of rhetorical strategy, the emphasis is shifted from the core result to an unrelated or tangential issue to win an argument. In yet another argument Naylor uses the red herring fallacy. This is explicated when he is asked to testify in front of the senatorial committee. He says Gentlemen, its called education ... It is the stemma of every parent to warn their children of all the d angers in the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get honest-to-goodness they can choose for themselves. Here again, Nick waves from the central topic of cigarettes to that of parental responsibility, education and freedom. He is well aware that Americans love their freedom and thereby plays with these words to control their emotion. Naylor also uses the faulty analogy fallacy in the senatorial committee meeting. He compares the Conglomerated Tobaccos cigarette funding with the funding for the senates campaign contributions. The ad hominem fallacy is used by Naylor when he suggests putting admonition signs on plastered products like Vermont cheddar cheese, cars and aeroplanes. The red herring fallacy is again used when Naylor points out the negative set up of Vermont cheddar cheese on raising cholesterol levels. In fact, Senator Lothridge has to interrupt to bring bear out Naylor and Senator Finisterre back on the core topic of whether to put warning labels o n cigarette packets. The main protagonist extensively uses logos to present his arguments in front of the senatorial committee. He logically concludes that if cigarette packets needed to display warning signs like skulls and crossbones then other products like cars, airplanes and Vermont cheddar cheese should also have warning signs. He knowingly dissuades from the core topic by quoting Well, the real demonstrated number one sea wolf in America is cholesterol, and here comes Senator Finisterre, whose fine state is, I