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 and engages with the audience, giving validity and credibility to the author’s arguments.
Adult-Rating of Movies with Smoking Scenes
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.
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, and the World Health Organization, showing not only the connection between smoking uptake and adult-rated movies but also the flaws of the sources. The authors mention the failure of studies to consider the independent variable closely (Chapman and Farrelly). By referring to studies and other agencies, authors contribute to the effectiveness of their material.
Moreover, Chapman and Farrelly use another rhetorical strategy, such as logical reasoning. The authors’ claim that smokers in movies never smoke but engage in many other activities is valid and worth considering (Chapman and Farrelly 2). Finally, Simon Chapman and Matthew C. Farrelly use rhetorical questions to challenge the proposed adoption of an adult rating (Chapman and Farrelly). Authors successfully engage with the audience by questioning assumptions of censorship and the regulation of movies.
Conclusion
Hence, the article is successful because the writers’ ideas are supported by the use of rhetorical strategies. 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.
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.