As I’m sure you can imagine, her writing is full of medical statistics which credit her argument. She explains how “Tobacco remains the leading cause of death in the United States, killing more people than AIDS, suicide, murder, car accidents, and drugs combined (Haviland 150).” She also points out, for example, that “The World Bank predicts that by 2030, tobacco-related illnesses will cause more than 10 million deaths per year, more than any other cause (Haviland 150)...” The facts she presents are compelling. She does a great job of conveying the scope of the impact that tobacco has on our species. In every sentence of her essay, Haviland seems to make the assumption that the reader is of the opinion, as she is, that smoking should be abolished in America. The entire work is a call to action. She uses terms like “we have failed to” throughout the piece. She makes no concessions toward opposing arguments of any type, and doesn’t acknowledge in any way that the reader may have a slightly differing
As I’m sure you can imagine, her writing is full of medical statistics which credit her argument. She explains how “Tobacco remains the leading cause of death in the United States, killing more people than AIDS, suicide, murder, car accidents, and drugs combined (Haviland 150).” She also points out, for example, that “The World Bank predicts that by 2030, tobacco-related illnesses will cause more than 10 million deaths per year, more than any other cause (Haviland 150)...” The facts she presents are compelling. She does a great job of conveying the scope of the impact that tobacco has on our species. In every sentence of her essay, Haviland seems to make the assumption that the reader is of the opinion, as she is, that smoking should be abolished in America. The entire work is a call to action. She uses terms like “we have failed to” throughout the piece. She makes no concessions toward opposing arguments of any type, and doesn’t acknowledge in any way that the reader may have a slightly differing