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 low;
some parents starting their children as young as five years old. Andrew Rosenthal decided to highlight and address
the issue of young tanners through his article “To Tan or Not” in The New
York Times. Throughout the article Rosenthal cites many sources that not
only strengthen his ethos but also his logos. This piece claims that tanning at
a young age increases chances of getting cancer. 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. This author shows great strengths in his article
through ethos and logos but he lacks in fallacies and unsupported points.
The
author’s main idea was to highlight on 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. Rosenthal’s sources
included Harvard Medical School, Yale School of Public Health and Center for
Disease Control and Prevention. All of these sources are well known and very
plausible to the public. Harvard and Yale are very well known Ivy League
schools filled with the best technology and resources to investigate certain
things like tanning. He even adds that Harvard Medical School “has followed
70,000 nurses for more than two decades.” 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. This author did well on creating a good ethos for him and
the article. When an author’s ethos is strong, the article becomes more valuable
and worth listening to.
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. This author
includes statistical and supporting evidence from his credible sources to prove
his point clearly and precisely. 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. 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.”
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.
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. On
top of that, Rosenthal also commits a fallacy that weakens his strong ethos. 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. 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. If Andrew elaborated on his stance of
tanning being addictive and removed his fallacy, his article would be much stronger.
Next
time you step into a tanning bed, I hope you have this information in mind. 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.
