Based on a novel by Christopher Buckley, Thank You for Smoking, was made into a film filled with dark comedy, logical fallacies and persuasive appeals. The film starts off with protagonist Nick Naylor who is a spokesman for the cigarette industry. As the film goes on, Nick Naylor uses several different tactics to defend the tobacco industry and influence people to smoke. Although Nick Naylor uses many fallacious arguments that can undermine the logic of his argument, he is still quite persuasive.
In Thank You for Smoking one of the first fallacious arguments that was used is red herring. The red herring fallacy is used when a person uses an issue that is irrelevant to distract the other person from the original issue. In the film, Nick Naylor uses red herring when he is talking to his son Joey about which ice-cream flavor is better. Joey states, “Chocolate is all I need.” Nick goes on and says, “Well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom.” This example displays red herring because for Nick Naylor to win the argument, he distracted his son from the main issue.
Not only is the red herring fallacy used in Thank You for Smoking, but also false dilemma. False dilemma happens when a person says that there are only two choices in an argument when there
…show more content…
The ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the motives or intentions of a person instead of focusing on the real argument. In Thank You for Smoking, the ad hominem fallacy appears when Nick Naylor suggests that warning labels should be put in products like cars, airplanes, and Vermont cheddar cheese. He uses this fallacy because he was trying to show the audience at a meeting that cigarettes are not the only product that is dangerous. Instead of focusing on the real argument, he was trying to attack the motives from the different representatives that were at the