This article titled “Addicted to Health” was written by Robert H. Bork, who is a conservative legal scholar. The main reason as to why he writes the article is so as to bring out the irony of the government in trying to deal strongly with the tobacco industry. He claims that the allegations that the law enforcers have over the effects of tobacco are misconstrued and, therefore, the move to put strict measures on the product is not justified. The article is argumentative, since it looks at one side of the debate about the banning of tobacco, then goes on to look at why this move is not justified, while giving reasons for the same. The article was published in The National Review on the 28th of July, 2007. This analysis will take the position that Bork (2007) used argumentative skills to indicate the reasons as to why the strong regulations on tobacco or unfair and unfounded, claiming that the government is just bent on controlling the lives of American citizens.
The credibility of the article can be seen from different perspectives. First of al, there is evidence that Bork has the authority to write on the issue since he is experienced in the matters of the law as a profession. However, the bibliographic information presented on him tends to make the reader doubt his honesty in the writing. It is indicated that his appointment to the Supreme Court was blocked by the congress. As such, the reader would be forgiven for thinking that Bork used the article to get back at the top guns. Another factor that weakens his credibility is that he blatantly writes off the arguments of his proponents. Using a high sense of irony, he compares the deaths caused by tobacco to those caused by speeding vehicles, arguing that vehicle producers should be blamed for the deaths just as tobacco industries are blamed (Bork, 2007). His aggressive and biased nature in dealing with the issue soils his credibility in writing this article. Furthermore, he does not seek any opinions from elsewhere but only gives his ideas.
Bork sought to address the general public on this issue. As such, he used a simplified language that could easily be understood by many. He also employs various tactics to create pathos. For instance, he continually uses the term “you” which makes the reader feel like it is an active conversation, hence connecting and associating with the article. He tries to state facts on legislations as well as quotations from some of the leaders to justify his position. In a way, it can be said that Bork manages to connect with the audience effectively.
In as much as the credibility of the article can be doubted, it cannot be denied that Bork (2007) manages to arrange his ideas and thoughts in a very chronological order. First of all, he states teh issue that it to be discussed and then gives his opinion on the same. He supports his position using tactics such as irony and comparisons. His manner of argument reveals that countries which tried to ban smoking only witnessed an increase in the number of smokers. The same applies to the ban on alcohol. In a nutshell, he tries to show that the government tries to control the lives of the people, and the people react by failing to comply by the set regulations. He, therefore, argues that banning smoking for whatever reason is not an effective way of control. Rather, this would only make the citizens suffer more.
In a summative form, it can be seen from the above account that Bork (2007) used his own understanding and opinions to show why tobacco regulation is not an honest move by the government. Though the motive and credibility of the article is doubted, it cannot be denied that Bork delivers his statement in a well crafted manner. There is a high level of argumentation in the article.
Bork, R.H. (2007). Addicted to Health. National Review, July 28, 2007. (Attached)