Introduction
Argument construction is a systematic and dynamic process. The main objective, sub objective, and environment influence its process of dissemination. This analytical treatise reviews Sarah Longwell’s dispute on indoor tanning as the cause of melanoma. Besides, the treatise presents a personal opinion on the cause of melanoma and provides a rationale.
Sarah Longwell’s Claim
Sarah Longwell’s claim that there is no scientific evidence to confirm that indoor tanning is one of the leading causes of melanoma is invalid. Sarah argues from a business perspective with her major premise of reasoning lying in protecting the business. She is apparently ignoring the empirical findings of well established organizations such as the National Cancer Institute and other bodies who have established a clear difference in the skin cancer prevalence among the males and females over a decade. It is apparent that women who practice indoor tanning showed higher levels of risk of skin cancer (Stein, 2008).
Thus, concluding that indoor tanning is not a possible cause of melanoma makes her claim invalid since the researchers suggested a possible cause through comparative analysis of the users of indoor skin tonners and those who don’t use them. Apparently, the evidence suggests that the users of indoor skin tanning, especially the females, had higher cases of skin cancer than their male counterparts who do not use the indoor skin tanners.
Personal opinion
Having a well prepared argument logic plan will ensure that a person is adequately prepared with all the materials that are needed to deliver a properly constructed and easy to interpret argument. I don’t agree with Sarah’s claim that indoor skin tanner is not a possible cause of melanoma since the empirical research seems to suggest so. Besides, it is common knowledge that continuous indoor tanning render users skins to the harmful UV-B and UV-A rays which are known to have a damaging effect on skin pigments. Since a prolonged use of indoor tanning changes the texture of skin, its effects cannot be ignored, especially with the rising cases of melanoma being reported among the female population who are the users of skin tanning products.
Despite her full knowledge of the indoor tanning policies in the United States, especially on minors, Sarah argument is only meant to protect the interests of her organization and does not put into consideration the other cancer contributing factors that indoor skin tanning has on the skin. In fact, most of the indoor tanning products have side effects include burning, itching, and mild infection when applied through occlusive dressing to sensitive skins. In cases of prolonged exposure, the side effects may lead to serious skin damages, even to normal skin (Stein, 2008).
The researchers from the National Cancer Institute have proven that “unprotected outdoor ultraviolet exposure is dangerous. Ultraviolet radiation is a carcinogen. If you bathe your skin in the ultraviolet light carcinogen long enough, skin cancer is going to develop” (Stein, 2008, par. 8). There is no major difference between outdoor and indoor tanning since the same products are used in different environments. Although the effects of unprotected outdoor tanning are easy to detect after a short period, it is illogical to assume that practicing indoor tanning with the same products would not expose the skin to the harmful UV rays responsible for melanoma.
Conclusion
Conclusively, Sarah’s argument that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that indoor tanning is invalid. Research on the effects of outdoor tanning reveals that prolonged exposure to skin tanning chemicals exposes the skins to UV rays. Indoor tanning also exposes the skin to these rays which are associated with melanoma.
Reference
Stein, R. (2008). Melanoma rates increase among young women. Web.