Politician: Conclusion The funding for the new nationwide health-awareness campaign should come from an increase in taxes on cigarettes. ██ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████ █████████
███████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██████ █████████ ████████████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████
The politician argues that a new health-awareness campaign should be funded by taxing cigarettes. As support, the politician says that smoking causes many health problems, and that it is reasonable to cover the campaign’s cost by taxing people whose habits cause health problems. Thus, it is reasonable to tax smokers.
The smoker supports the unstated conclusion that it is not reasonable for smokers to bear the costs of this campaign. The smoker uses an analogy as support: consuming high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes comparable health issues to smoking, but it is unreasonable to charge those consumers for the campaign’s costs. This implies that it is also unreasonable to charge smokers.
We need to find a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether or not funding the campaign by taxing smokers is reasonable.
The smoker's response to the ████████████ ████████
offers a counterexample ████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ █████████
presents an alternative ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████
argues that the ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████
questions the accuracy ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █ ██████████
illustrates how the ████████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████