Sample English Paper on Let’s Ban All Flavors of Cigarettes

Response to Questions


Geo Batta Gori rather than Derrick Jackson has attempted to provide a more balanced picture to their audiences. In their respective write-ups titled “The Bogus Science of secondhand Smoke” and “Let’s ban all Flavors of Cigarettes” the immediate picture given to the audience regarding the content of the write-ups is close similarity of the content to the title. However, as Jackson develops his information; little focus is given to the development of the objective provided by the title. For instance, from Jackson’s write-up, a lot of emphasis has been given on how it is impossible to end menthol flavors in cigarette production.

He begins his discussion by providing what has so far been achieved in terms of eradicating flavors in cigarettes. That is, the successful ban of candy and fruit-floured cigarettes   ((Jackson, 2009 p.96). Although the next point of discussion (majored on eradication of menthol cigarettes) seems to agree with the picture created in audience’s minds by the title, he goes ahead to show impossibility of eradicating this type cigarette flavor. For example, although candy cigarettes were not common among the United States citizens, the product was done away with, an action that should have first happened to menthol cigarettes. However, due to high income generation ability caused by this product (menthol), its production was not prevented. He states that menthol cigarettes are nearly 30 percent of the $ 87 billion U.S cigarette market (Jackson, 2009 p.96). Therefore, would the audience focus on complete eradication of cigarettes flours or the economic importance brought about by menthol cigarettes, since as much as they offer great income to the government, there is little chance of them being eradicated?

From Gori’s write-up however, the bogus is used in the title meaning that the information contained in the write-up is focused on falsehood of the science behind secondhand smoke.  The writer is an expert in epidemiology and toxicology (Gori, 2007 p.98). He provides different opinion on facts provided by researches and reports on the effects of secondhand smoke. For example, he argues that though reports have indicated possibility of secondhand smoke on causing cancer and cardiovascular diseases, the claims are far from truth. This is because of factors, such as length of exposure to secondhand smoke, degree of concentration of the smoke to non-smokers, and the number of times a non-smoker is likely to be in presence of smokers (Gori, 2007 p. 98). According to the writer, due to low chances of occurrence of these factors, then the science behind the effects of secondhand smoke on cancer-related ailments is misleading.


Both writers convey positive attitudes towards the audience. As Jackson elaborates on the dangers of menthol cigarettes, he further provides economic importance of the product. For example, he states, “that menthol masks the harshness of smoking with its cooling effect and minty taste”. On economical basis, he provides several points as to why eradication of the product has not succeeded yet (Jackson, 2009 pp.96-98). From these instances, it is possible to conclude that the writer is aware of both the positive and negative effects of menthol cigarettes, issues he has tried to bring out clearly to the audience. From Gori’s write-up, a practical example of positive attitude is conveyed when the writer offers logical challenges to scientific claims regarding health effects of secondhand smoke.

Gori (2007) has highly antagonized the audience. Despite the report’s claims on cancer related effects of secondhand smoking, the writer has developed in-depth analysis of the impossibility of the claimed factors to development of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. For example, he reacted contrary to a study that had been conducted to verify the effect of secondhand smoke by saying that the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected (Gori, 2007 p.99)


From class discussion knowledge, fallacies are statements that indicate mistaken belief due to unsound arguments. Gori’s write-up presents the fallacy of appeal to force when the argument presented by claims of the effects of secondhand smoke provided that “even a short time exposure to secondhand smoke can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion” (Gori, 2007 p.98). This argument is meant to attract the audience attention to the importance of the fact that exposure to any degree of second hand smoke can automatically contribute to development of cancerous and cardiovascular diseases. In other words, the argument’s main objective was to provide a platform for which individuals could be made not to avoid participating in actual smoking habits but make the environment unsuitable even for those who might still be engaging in smoking practices by avoiding their presence when smoking. This could eventually cause a strong line of division between smokers and non-smokers, with the latter group taking the victim side. From Jackson’s work, this fallacy is evidenced when the writer records that imposing ban on menthol cigarettes would cause high loss of income and economic activities for majority of the U.S citizens, in terms of job opportunities (Jackson, 2009 p. 96). The main reason for this argument was to provide the basis upon which other forms of eradication (of cigarette flavors) were done. From the write-up, it is clear that the main reason as to why menthol flavor was spared was its ability to generate high revenue for the Federal government (Jackson, 2009 p.96-97).

Another type of fallacy evidenced from the write-ups is called the fallacy of popularity. From Jackson’s work, this fallacy is linked with the argument that menthol eradication has not been achieved due to its positive contributions to the U.S government. Although more than 443,000 lives are lost annually due to the effects of menthol cigarettes, it is still protected by the political will as it supports the government’s revenue basket (Jackson, 2009 p.96-97). In this write-up, the fallacy can be corrected by establishing a title that is in line with the argument. From Gori’s work, the fallacy of popularity is evidenced on the claim that majority of individuals have accepted the report findings on the exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke (Gori, 2007 p. 98). Correction of this fallacy is possible if the argument is meant to challenge the report’s results without necessarily showing that other people (of whom we are not told about) supported the claims.

Q. 6

Irrespective o f the fact that there are several challenges facing eradication of menthol flavor cigarettes, Jackson maintains that there is need from all citizens to establish a working strategy on how to end the problems associated with cigarette manufacture and smoking. He mentions that FDA (a people’s organization) has the opportunity to reconsider their actions on eradication of all cigarette flavors (including menthol) (Jacson, 2009 p. 98). Gori’s common ground with audience is evident where he calls for straight thinking in order to establish legitimate use of health-related sciences (Gori, 2007 p. 99).


The purpose of Jackson’s essay is present possible steps that have been taken to eradicate cigarette flavors with accompanying challenges to facing this exercise. Gori’s essay aims to develop a more reasonable approach to issues related to side effects of scientific claims to health solutions.


Jackson, D. Z. (2009, 26 September). Let’s Ban All Flavors of Cigarettes. The Boston Globe. Retrieved 27 Sept 2014 from

Gori, G. (2007, 30 January). The Bogus “Science” of Secondhand Smoke. The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 Sept 2014 from