"The Health Risks of Secondhand Smoke Are Exaggerated," according to an article written by W. Kip Viscusi, which is published in 1997 in Smoking, Opposing Viewpoints. The article, is not effective. Not only are the sources of the evidence not clearly identified, but also Viscusi uses logical fallacies, and the organization is confusing. The first reason why Viscusi's article is not effective is that the sources of the evidence Viscusi uses are not clearly identified. To …
showed first 75 words of 531 total

showed last 75 words of 531 total
…in words like "proposed" and "would have" to explain the laws about taxation of cigarettes. Therefore, in conclusion, the susceptible credentials, confusing organization, and all the logical fallacies prove that this article is written unsuccessfully. This type of article should have been written with impressive credentials, better organization, and true statements. If Viscusi had used those key topics, he would have been more successful in convincing the reader that secondhand smoke health risks are exaggerated.