Thank you for smoking - Movie Review Example

This depicts a frame of Nick’s character and probably explains the reason as to why he does not 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 about the stakes. In the talk show, Nick wins the argument by announcing the launch of a $50 million campaign to dissuade teenagers from smoking.

However, the Captain when hearing about this campaign remarks ‘I hope the campaign is not too effective!’The 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 own 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 used 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 ‘well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom’. This displays the fallacy of red herring.

In this kind of rhetorical strategy, the emphasis is shifted from the core issue 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, it’s called education . It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers in the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older 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 Tobacco’s cigarette funding with the funding for the senate’s campaign contributions. The ad hominem fallacy is used by Naylor when he suggests putting warning signs on certain products like Vermont cheddar cheese, cars and aeroplanes.

The red herring fallacy is again used when Naylor points out the negative effects of Vermont cheddar cheese on raising cholesterol levels. In fact, Senator Lothridge has to interrupt to bring back Naylor and Senator Finisterre back on the core topic of whether to put warning labels on 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 killer in America is cholesterol, and here comes Senator Finisterre, whose fine state is, I