Nicole Appel221/230

Dr. Cooke
WRT 120-27
November 10, 2016
E-Cigarettes are No Better
Knowing how bad smoking is for you, why do people still do it? In today's society,
especially in the college environment, the use of electronic cigarettes has become the cigarette of
choice. Most people and especially college students, are aware of the effects of smoking and
know the reasons to quit. The exigency of the article is referring to todays day and age in which
smoking is a big controversial issue. It has a sense of urgency because smoking is the lead cause
of avoidable death causing many people to go to electronic cigarettes. She argues in the article
that maybe e-cigarettes are no better. . In April of 2016 Pamela Ling, a professor at the
University of California, San Francisco for the Center for Tobacco Control Research and
Education wrote her article, NO: There Are Better and Safer Ways to Quit Smoking, in the Wall
Street Journal under the health section. Her goal was to discuss the better ways to quit smoking.
The author, Pamela Ling, effectively uses logos, Kairos and her personal research to persuade
her audience to agree with her argument that electronic cigarettes are not a better or healthier
way to quit smoking. Her use of rhetorical strategies, exemplification and cause and effect, helps
strengthen her argument by providing examples and the effects of the electronic cigarette. She
begins her argument by discussing the research and well known corporations input on the matter
then to the health concerns of using electronic cigarettes. She ends her article talking about the
companies selling the product.

In her article, Ling starts by telling us that there are better ways to quit smoking and that
e-cigarettes are an ineffective way. She then continues on talking about the more effective ways
to make quitting easier. After discussing this she then goes on to talk about the health concerns of
the e-cigarette and how it actually causes users to continue smoking. She addresses the issue of
substantiation by discussing why people started to use e-cigarettes in the first place and then
continues to the effects of them and why there is no point in smoking them. She sums everything
up by telling us a little about who actually owns and sells e-cigarettes.
Throughout the piece, we see that the authors claim is that people should not substitute
e-cigarettes for regular smoking because there is proof that they do not help quit smoking. Her
evidence consists of experiments her and her coworkers have done, consisting of 100 smokers,
revealing that e-cigarette users were not likely to stop smoking. Ling shows her rhetorical stance
through the use of logos, the use of logic through two main rhetorical strategies, exemplification
and cause and effect help strengthen her agreement by providing examples of the health concerns
that come along with using electronic cigarettes. Furthermore, she uses facts and statistics .
She also strengthens her argument with providing her audience with a few different sources,
which include the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and few more.
By stating statistics, she uses logos by including, comparing e-cigarettes with a nicotine patch.
It showed low quit rates and virtually no difference: 7% of nicotine e-cigarette users and 6% of
nicotine patch users quit. Ling also expresses her use of Kairos throughout her argument, which
is appealing to the timeliness of the matter This article was written at a good time because the
use e-cigarettes has been at the highest it's ever been. With this generation knowing the health
concerns thats come along with smoking, they believe that smoking electronic cigarettes are the
better choice. With the people of this country believing that e-cigarettes are the better choice, this

article came at a good time because it contradicts the views that the electronic cigarette is a better
choice for smoking.
Even though many know that smoking is bad for them, many still continue to do it, but
now more people are being pulled towards e-cigarettes. Many people think that they are better
than regular cigarettes, but Pamela Ling shows us in her article that they actually are not. From
reading this article the audience can see Lings stance on smoking and we see that electronic
cigarettes may not be the way to go when trying to quit smoking. The text accomplishes its goal
of showing why e-cigarettes are not better than regular cigarettes, but where it fails is with it
statistics. Using more numerical data could have strengthened her argument a little more. Before
reading this article, I did believe that electronic cigarettes were the healthier option but now not
so much. Knowing more about the cigarettes themselves has shown that neither cigarette is good
for you and you are the only one that can quit. This text does produce a counter argument
because with as many people as there are using electronic cigarettes, they will definitely argue
that they are better for you. There is always going to be information that shows which is better, if
there even is, but everyone one will have their opinions and they are the only ones that decided
to quit smoking or not.

WRT 120
Dr. Cooke

Peer-editing Workshop: Rhetorical Analysis

Author: Onyi Isiodu

Editor Nicole Appel

Note to Author: What problems or uncertainties do you see in your working draft? Ask your
readers about particular passages in the draft so that you can get specific feedback.
As of right now for what you have so far, I think it is really good. Obviously from
here you just have to complete your paper and adding the necessary points listed in the
google doc. I think you on to a great start just keep writing.

How does the author contextualize the specific debate, discussion, or controversy? How do they
touch on terms such as motivation, kairos, and exigency?
For not having her whole paper she does do a good job contextualizing her topic.
She touches on the terms of motivation, Kairos, and exigency because she has picked a
recently written article that covers and issue that is affecting people today. The
motivation is good because it is bringing to the attention of people an issue that affects
them and motivates them to do something about.

Does the authors thesis use the language argument is (in)effective? Based solely on the
authors thesis, please identify the topic, opinion and three specific points their argument hinges
on.
Yes she uses effectively. In her argument her topic addresses the sugar issue in this
country and they way it is linked to fat and how we should be paying more attention to it.
The author points are the research by the Harvard scientists, link between sugar and fat
and the link between sugar and heart disease. This is a good start and on the right path.

Does the authors first body paragraph summarize the main point(s) of the article?
Yes it does. I think the writer could be a little clearer on what the main points will be. Over
all it gives you some insight of what will be discussed in the paper.

How does the article or speech frame the issue(s) (substantiation, evaluation, and/or policy? Is
the authors interpretation accurate, why or why not?
From what there is, the author could be going on the path or substantiation or
evaluation, it just depends on the way she decides to go. If you go down the line of
substantiation she could discuss facts, causes and the consequences, but if she goes
down the line of evaluation she could discuss about the issue being good or bad.

Evaluate the authors analysis of the articles rhetorical stance. Does the author identify and
interpret the coordination of ethos, pathos, and logos accurately?
The author has not gotten to the point of discussing ethos, pathos & logos. She says in
the introduction paragraph that she will discuss logos and pathos.

Does the author identify and evaluate the different parts of the argument (claim, evidence,
enabling assumptions)?
Not yet, but Im sure she will later in her paper. She gives us a brief insight of the claim
and what evidence she will be discuss but has not gotten to that point yet. She is on the
right track

Does the author begin their conclusion by restating their thesis (differently than in the intro)?
Does the author address the articles overall effectiveness in convincing others? Why or why
not?
No not yet, she has not gotten to that point.

Does the author address the articles overall effectiveness in clarifying reasonable differences?
No not yet, she has not gotten to that point.