I have changed many things about my paper, such as adding topic and ending sentences along with a whole new paragraph. I tried to organize it in a better way then I had before and I think I was successful in doing so. By adding a forth body paragraph, my paper began to make more sense and flow better which I am proud of.
Haley Makoski
English 200
Rhetorical
Essay
The first tanning
bed was created in 1979 and since then tanning has become a major part in many
people’s lives. Over the years, the age of indoor tanners has become
increasingly younger; some parents introduce their children
to tanning beds as young as five years old. A recent bill regarding tanning has
been introduced due to a recent finding of a mother forcing her five year old
daughter to tan. People were outraged; they believed that a law was needed to
prevent minors from tanning. Andrew Rosenthal decided to highlight the issue of young
tanners through his article “To Tan or Not” in The New York Times. He used the risk of getting cancer to prove his point of how
younger children should not be allowed to tan. Throughout the article Rosenthal cites many
sources that not only strengthen his ethos but also his logos. For example, this
piece claims that tanning at a young age increases chances of getting cancer. To support his main point of his argument, he cited many well
known sources that were very credible. This gained trust in the in readers and
offered a deeper understanding of his argument. Andrew includes many
strong points of how tanning at a young age can cause cancer, although he does
not go into much detail about them, which serves as one
of his weaknesses. If Rosenthal were to stick to one main point, instead of
breaking off on different tangents, not only would this paper be more organized
but would also flow better. Along with his vague points, Rosenthal also commits
a fallacy which weakens his argument as well. This author shows great
strengths in his article through ethos and logos but his arguments lacks due to
his fallacy and unsupported points.
The
author’s main purpose was to highlight the fact that people who start tanning
at a young age are at a much higher risk of getting cancer. To prove his point,
he expands on the hard evidence of the damage that tanning beds can do
especially to those who are younger. The author comes through as very credible
with a strong ethos when he cites many of his sources, including Harvard
Medical School, Yale School of Public Health and Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. All of these sources are well known and very trustworthy to the
public. Harvard and Yale are very well known Ivy League schools filled with the
best technology and resources to investigate certain topics like tanning. He
even adds that Harvard Medical School “has followed 70,000 nurses for more than
two decades,” which shows how the students are only
learning from the best. It also shows how long Harvard has not only been around
but offering this type of research program. The longer the source has been
around for, the more credible it becomes. On top
of Harvard’s record of being an Ivy League school, the fact that they had been
learning from primary sources added to their credibility. By using these pieces of information from these given
sources, the author has created a strong ethos for him and the article. When an author’s ethos is strong, the article
becomes more valuable and worth listening to, which
serves as a strength to Rosenthal’s argument.
Ethos
is not the only appeal present in this article; the appeal of logos is strong
as well. Having supporting evidence is key in a persuasive article. Rosenthal
includes statistical and supporting evidence from his credible sources to prove
his point clearly and precisely. For example, Rosenthal includes how Harvard
found that “tanning-bed use increased the risk of developing all three major
forms of skin cancer, especially for the young women who started during high
school and college.” He also includes a
quote from Yale that states “indoor tanning increased the risk of developing
basal cell carcinomas, the most common skin cancer, before the age of 40.” With
strong evidence like this, the people reading this article not only get the
idea but also strongly believe in it. Having a credible
source is one thing, but having a credible source that provides detailed
evidence is another. On top of citing well known, trustworthy sources, the author
did a clever job in choosing which pieces of information to include. With the pieces
Rosenthal included, any reader would or be close to convinced that tanning causes
cancer. Which shows how his included evidence serves as a strength in his
article. Rosenthal also includes that the Center of Disease Control and
Prevention “found 30 percent of non-Hispanic white women age 18 to 25 had
engaged in indoor tanning the previous 12 months; those ages 18 to 21 had
average an astonishing 27 sessions a year.” This shows
how younger women frequent the tanning beds more than older women which shows
the relevance of young tanners and their risk of getting cancer. He includes
this point to prove there are a number of young tanners out there and the
number is increasing. All the
evidence this article consists of does a good job supporting his main idea. When strong facts and supporting detail are
present, the article not only becomes stronger but also more honorable. Although Rosenthal portrays a lot of strengths throughout
his piece, his weaknesses are presented in other ways.
The
author of this article is successful in supporting his main point, but
throughout the article you can find other points being made but not supported. Toward
the end of his article he states a point on how tanning can become addictive.
He does not however, go on to support or even elaborate on how or why it can
become addictive. Throughout his piece he does a great job with addressing the
fact that tanning at a young age increases the risk of cancer, but by adding
another point it throws off the main idea of the article. In a way it might be
persuading the audience more that tanning is bad by adding that extra point,
but I feel that it is not necessary. Not only does this
create confusion but also disorganization of his argument. It is extremely
important to be straight forward and conscience when it comes to making a main
point. Making strong points aside can weaken the arguments depth and intensity.
If Rosenthal were to extend upon the addiction of tanning and somehow connected
it back to his main point, it would be a different story. In a way he almost snuck
the point in there which leads to an unfinished piece of business and creates a
weakness in his article. If Andrew elaborated on his stance of tanning being
addictive this article would be much stronger.
On top of Rosenthal’s unsupported side points, he commits a
fallacy that weakens his strong ethos. His audience includes those of a younger
crowd and also parents. He uses a scare tactic to make both believe his point
about tanning at a young age. His scare tactic is used by saying if you tan at
a young age you will get cancer. In a way this weakens Rosenthal’s article by
portraying a slippery slope. The act of tanning is not healthy but saying it
causes cancer, is false because not everyone that tans gets cancer. So in a way
this fallacy can weaken his ethos, which overall weaken the actual article. His
credibility almost turns untrustworthy because he drills the untruthful fact
that tanning causes cancer all the time into his readers minds. Some readers
might find him ignorant and unknowledgeable. If Rosenthal were to mention the percentages
of people getting cancer to those who have not gotten cancer from tanning beds,
and comment among the statistics, his argument would be stronger. Instead he
said everyone who tans gets cancer. If Rosenthal removed this fallacy or
corrected his statement, his argument would be stronger.
Next time you step
into a tanning bed, I hope you have this information in mind. Is having darker skin for a short, impermanent amount of time
worth getting cancer over? Rosenthal’s argument portrays ethos and logos
through his many strong sources, which makes it not only truthful but
creditable. Knowing these facts of tanning, I hope you decide to soak up the
natural sun rays instead. Although this article requires more supportive
evidence, Rosenthal does an excellent job in portraying his ethos and logos.
