Compare and Contrast Two Argument Essays

The assignment content discusses two argumentative essays on whether smoking should be banned in public areas. The first essay presents five arguments against banning smoking, including the idea that designated smoking areas can reduce harm to non-smokers and that people will simply smoke at home instead of in public places. The second essay presents five arguments for banning smoking, including the risks of heart disease, lung cancer, and fire hazards. Both essays have strong and weak points, with the second essay's arguments being generally stronger due to their focus on health risks.

Argumentative Essay 1
UNIV 1212: Critical Thinking and Problem
Solving
Dr Ali Alghazo
Fall 2016-2017
Section XXX
Name:
ID:
Major:
Assignment 4: Compare and Contrast Two
Argument Essays (20%)

Argumentative Essay 2
Introduction
The report talks about the two essays based on ‘smoking’ but the perspective is different in both
the essays. One of the essays gives the arguments against banning smoking in the public areas
and the other essay gives the arguments for banning smoking in the public areas. The issue of
whether to ban or not the smoking in public area is debatable for past many years and the debate
is still going on. Both the perspectives give compelling facts but, there has been no ‘midway’
that has been adopted by the government yet. The essays are strong enough to make anyone
believe in their arguments because the facts and opinions that have been discussed here are very
influential and it is very difficult to judge that which one should be followed. But, when it
comes to health risks, that only point can overcome all other arguments that support the smoking
in public area.
The report aims to compare and contrast both the essays to determine the strength of arguments
in them and to determine that which one of them has the strongest supporting reasons for their
arguments.
Arguments against Banning Smoking
The first argument is that if smoking is allowed in ‘Designated areas’ at public places, then it
will not harm the non-smokers as they can simple avoid walking in that area. This is a weak
argument because it is not always possible for them to avoid that area. For example, in a school
if small kids are playing in the ground and they do not have such an understanding level that they
can differentiate between the areas, then they may end up entering the ‘designated area for
smoking’ and may get affected by the smoke.
The second argument says that smoking reduces the stress levels in employees; hence they
should be allowed to smoke for better productivity and for calming their nerves. But, the
productivity may also reduce if the employee is sneaking off again and again for smoking
because he is addicted to that. So, a ‘no smoking’ policy will make him sit and do the work and
he may also leave this habit if he doesn’t get to smoke in office.
The third argument says that if smoking is banned at public places, they will smoke at home and
will harm their family members. This is a reasonable argument because when they will not be

Argumentative Essay 3
allowed to smoke freely, they will do it at their home where they will be comfortable and nobody
can stop them there. This will increase the risk of lung disease to their children.
The fourth argument says that when people smoke, they are in a way paying high taxes on
tobacco and thus funding their own healthcare. This is again a very weak argument because in
the other case, when they people are banned from smoking, they may not fall ill ever and they
may not have to use any healthcare ever. But, in case they are smoking, it is very likely that they
will fall ill. So, prevention is better than cure, and it is better not to let them smoke and fund their
own healthcare, rather than allowing them to fall ill.
The fifth argument says that a ban will adversely affect the business of bars, pubs etc. because
they sell tobacco and people are driven to them for that. Hence, the business will get affected and
many will lose their jobs. The argument is strong because these places are a source of living for
many people. But, the bars and pubs can also sell entertainment, music etc. rather than tobacco.
The sixth and the last argument say that it is not possible to maintain this ban in many of the
public places because some of the staff of police, who are smokers, will not report other
smokers. But, this is a weak argument because this can be automated by putting smoke detectors
at the places and by installing cameras that will automatically capture the smokers.
Arguments for Banning Smoking
The first argument is that smoking increase the risk of heart diseases and lung cancers in people.
Also, the passive smokers die due to these diseases. This is a very strong argument because it has
been proven that smoking has health related risks. This can be avoided by modifying the
cigarettes and introducing e-cigarettes that does not affect the health of people. Also, the anti-
nicotine gums can be introduced so that people can leave this habit.
The second argument says that children are the ones who are most adversely affected by the
smoke that gets generated from the cigarettes. Since, the children are innocently exposed to the
parents or guardians who are regular smokers; therefore they are likely to get affected. The only
way by which they can be protected is banning the smoking at every place, be it public area or
home. This will reduce the earnings of government, but it will protect the small children.

Argumentative Essay 4
The third argument says that the clothes and body starts to smell due to the smoke of cigarette
which is offensive to the non-smokers. But, this is a weak argument because the smell can be
avoided if perfume is worn after smoking.
The fourth argument is that the smoke from the cigarettes gets spread all over the building which
affects all people. But, this argument is weak because if the windows and proper ventilation is
there in the building, then it will not travel.
The fifth argument says that smoking causes the risk of fire and other environmental dangers.
This is true because the no matter how much provisions are put or how many precautions are
taken, the cigarette can find its way to the ground or the floor.
Comparison between the Two Essays
In both the essays, the arguments are mostly strong but the counter arguments are easy to create
for each of them. Both essays have reasoned each of the argument in a detailed and justified
manner. Both of them also talks about the risks to health that are associated with smoking and in
both the essays, it is believed that yes, smoking causes diseases in people and children.
Contrast between the Two Essays
The arguments are from different perspectives in both the essays. One emphasis on the ban on
smoking and the other one are against this ban. Mostly, the arguments of the second essay are
stringer than the first essay because it is difficult to create its counter arguments. While the
second essay talks about the risks to health, the first one gives a solution that how can the
exposure to this risk can be reduced.
Conclusion
Thus, banning and not banning the smoking in public areas is a hot issue today. Though people
have the right to live in their own way but, it is important to at least get rid of the ill effects of the
passive smoking. As per the above discussion, the arguments of the second essay which is in
favor of banning are stronger than the first essay because it is very difficult to create counter
arguments for that. Also, the arguments related to health of people and children are very strong,
true and factual that it cannot be avoided or counterfeited.