Introduction
Chapman and Farrelly argue in their article “Four Arguments Against the Adult-Rating of Movies with Smoking Scenes” that the proposed adoption of an adult rating for movies with smoking scenes is flawed. Their specific audience is the public health community, and they advocate for adopting an adult rating. The article is effective since it uses rhetorical strategies, such as logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, expert testimony, and engagement with the audience, which gives validity and credibility to the author’s arguments.
Arguments
Chapman and Farrelly successfully address the adult rating by concentrating on methodological, practical, and ethical issues. They assert that other aspects of movies are intertwined with the evidence supporting smoking scenes in movies (Chapman and Farrelly 1). They then critique the imprecise reductionism and logic used to support the assertion that adult rating would stop “probably 200,000 a year from starting to smoke” (Chapman and Farrelly 2). Moreover, they are concerned about the naivety of advocacy efforts that regard cinema categorization as a helpful instrument (Chapman and Farrelly 3). Therefore, the authors provide several perspectives and engage with the readers for better success.
Rhetoric Strategies
In the article, the authors effectively use strategies to convey the messages. In terms of expert testimony, they cite over twenty public health agencies, studies, news articles, and websites, showing not only the connection between smoking uptake and adult-rated movies but also the flaws of the sources. First, the authors successfully provide an opposing viewpoint regarding the movie ratings. For this purpose, the researchers include the quote from the Free Smoke Movies website that rating movies might help prevent “probably 200,000 a year from starting to smoke” (Chapman & Farrelly 2). This way, Chapman and Farrelly emphasize the opinions of other groups.
Then, when supporting their perspectives, authors focus on peer-reviewed, credible articles, such as the one by Wallmyr and Welin from The Journal of School Nursing. Chapman and Farelly emphasize that rating movies with smoking scenes might not be as effective in terms of preventing smoking among adolescents as it might seem. Relying on valid data from Wallmyr and Welin’s article, the authors show that “nearly all (98.9%) 15-year-old Swedish boys and 73.5% of girls have viewed pornography, often accessed through file-sharing sites” (Chapman and Farrelly 2).
This use of expert testimony is effective in persuading the reader because it relies on the authority of scientific sources and research to support the authors’ argument. This way, the authors mention the failure of studies to consider the independent variable closely and review other factors. This strategy would appeal to the audience since it clearly demonstrates to the readers the inefficiency of movie ratings through similar policy examples and scientifically proven facts.
Moreover, Chapman and Farrelly use another rhetorical strategy, logical reasoning, which is effective due to the authors’ focus on various perspectives and discussing how rating movies with smoking scenes is ineffective. There is validity to the claim made by authors that smokers in movies never smoke but engage in many other activities (Chapman and Farrelly 1). Authors argue that “movies showing smoking have a lot more in them that might appeal to youth at risk of smoking than just smoking,” which is worth considering (Chapman and Farrelly 1).
Additionally, while citing the research, the authors claim that there are factors that studies omit, such as a predisposition “for other risky behaviors,” which demonstrates logical reasoning that relies on previous research (Chapman and Farrelly 1). This way, such a strategy would appeal to the audience since the readers observe the development of the arguments, which are not simply claims but carry reasoning behind them.
Finally, Simon Chapman and Matthew C. Farrelly use rhetorical questions to challenge the proposed adoption of an adult rating. They ask, “Why is this ‘muddying’ of the independent variable a critical consideration?” (Chapman and Farrelly 1). This rhetorical question is practical since it invites readers to consider the inconsistency of allowing smoking in movies while regulating it in other contexts. By questioning assumptions of censorship and the regulation of movies, the authors successfully engage with the audience and subtly suggest that the current rating system is flawed and needs to be changed. In such a way, the audience would find it effective since it will allow them to pause and ponder the question while receiving the answers later in the article.
Conclusion
Hence, the article is successful because rhetorical strategies support the writers’ ideas. Writers reinforce their claims through expert evidence, logical reasoning, and rhetorical questions. Their target audience is the public health community and those campaigning for the adult classification of movies featuring smoking scenes. Since the authors engage with the readers and use evidence, the audience can find the arguments effective and successful. Public health advocates and policy-makers will find these strategies persuasive since they will see, based on the failed measures concerning pornography, that some restricting policies do not simply limit one’s autonomy but are ineffective based on scientific material.
Work Cited
Chapman, Simon, and Farrelly, Matthew C. “Four Arguments Against the Adult-Rating of Movies with Smoking Scenes.” PLoS Medicine, vol. 8, no. 8, 2011, pp. 1-3. Web.