To Tan or Not?

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.