Introduction
The article selected for this review is Smoking bans protect both the public and the infants and children of smokers by Lipton et al. that was published in 2018. The work presents arguments for the benefits of smoking bans for the public and children of smokers. Its main points are that smoke-free laws can help people to quit smoking, reduce children’s exposure to smoke, and improve individuals’ and children’s health and poor birth outcomes. The analysis of this article is important because it is crucial to identify whether the authors’ claims are reliable and what factors affect their persuasiveness.
Analysis
Audience
It is possible to say that the authors have written the article aimed at a non-specialist audience. They provide statistical data to support their claims, which can be significant for scholars studying the topic while not using overly complex words and sentence structures. Individuals of all genders, cultures, and nationalities can find the article useful. However, the authors address the data from the US primarily, which means that people not living in the country may not be interested in the information. The article may not be useful for children and young adolescents, as its language is not simplified; the topic the authors present is narrow.
Purpose
The purpose of the article is to show why smoking bans aim at protecting the public and the children of smokers. The work is persuasive because the authors do not present the benefits of alternative viewpoints and present several arguments for their claim. They address the benefits and potential outcomes of smoking bans and the effect of smoke on infant and child health. The article is informative because it presents graphs and statistical data, referring to other authors studying the issue.
Ethos/Credibility
It is possible to say that the article is credible. Its authors are professors from New York University, Bentley University, and San Diego State University; moreover, one of them works at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit organization focused on public health. One of the possible biases presented in the article is that the authors do not consider alternative opinions and the possible adverse effects of smoking bans on individuals. However, a multifaceted perspective on the topic balances the article, as authors review existing literature on the issue and do not concentrate on their viewpoint solely.
Logos
The authors’ work is significant, as it presents evidence from national and international studies on smoking bans. Lipton et al. address the percentage of the population affected by smoke-free laws, analyzing the data for more than two decades. The information is well-organized, and the paper is well-structured. The article presents high-quality research, as it combines the data from several studies conducted in different states. The presented work may be considered scholarly because it includes a reference list, provides a graph, and features precise information.
Pathos
From the perspective of pathos, the authors’ narrative can create a strong emotional response among the audience. They discuss the effects of smoking on children and infants, highlighting that the lack of smoking-free laws can result in asthma-related hospitalization and poor birth outcomes (Lipton et al.). At the same time, the narrative is not designed to scare the audience but rather presents the problems individuals can avoid by implementing smoking bans.
Tone
It is possible to say that the tone of the article is primarily informative. Although the authors present arguments for their opinion, they do not use pessimistic or highly negative statements. Instead, they address facts on smoking bans and their effects, along with the impact of smoking in general. The tone of the article can be considered objective, too, as Lipton et al. address the issue without prejudice and base their viewpoints on facts.
Word Choice
The authors utilize formal language; their word choice is appropriate for a scholarly article. They do not include the words that have a medium level of specificity, which means that each reader can understand the meaning of the terms presented. The article presents accurate and strong nouns and verbs while avoiding vagueness; such a word choice helps the authors to be persuasive in their claims.
SLR
The quality of the systematic literature review (SLR) in the article is high. The authors refer to more than fifteen works to support their viewpoint. They address statistical data from various periods, including the 1990s and present time. In addition, Lipton et al. discuss the aspects of the articles they provide, such as sample sizes, inclusion criteria, and findings. Notably, the authors refer to both scholarly articles and the official reports by governmental agencies.
Conclusion
The report shows that the article by Lipton et al. is reliable. It presents statistical data on the issue and supports all claims with evidence. The analysis shows that these factors contribute to the paper’s reliability and persuasiveness. Moreover, the authors use appropriate and not overly complex language, which is beneficial for the audience. Thus, the article is an example of a well-developed and well-structured report on the issue.
Work Cited
Lipton, Brandy, et al. “Smoking Bans Protect Both the Public and the Infants and Children of Smokers.” VOX, CERP Policy Portal, 2018.