Essay About Second Passage And First Passage

Critical Thinking
Essay Preview: Critical Thinking
Report this essay
Critical Thinking EssayMany people have different views about alcohol advertising. Some believe broadcast alcohol advertising has absolutely no influence on teens and other believe it is the cause of under-age drinking.  We are going to discuss two different scenarios that have opposite standpoints on broadcast alcohol advertising and the influences it has on young adults that are considered under-age drinkers. Both passages take positions that differ completely but give evidence to support their theories.         The first passage states “A ban on broadcast alcohol advertising would save 2,000-3,000 people a year from alcohol-related motor-vehicle crashes.” Clearly they are against broadcast advertising involving alcohol. They compare the effects of alcohol advertising to the effects of tobacco advertising by saying alcohol advertising has similar effects that tobacco advertising had. The second passage is going in a completely different direction. They are taking it to a political level by bringing in the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech. This passage is taking the other side. They do not think broadcast alcohol advertising has an influence on young adults.  They think whoever is drinking is responsible for their own actions and should take responsibility for them and not try to blame it on the advertising.         Both passages contain different reasoning for their opinions. The first passage states there is strong scientific evidence that the effects of alcohol advertising, like the effects of tobacco advertising, are not limited to brand selection by adults. They are saying not only do adults see the advertising, but everyone sees it including young children. Joel W. Grube and Lawrence Wallack suggest that beer commercials can have an influence on children ages 10 to 12, increasing their intention to drink as an adult. The second passage explains their reasoning by comparing broadcast alcohol  advertising to a celebrity drinking a frosty brew in a movie. They are saying if alcohol advertising should be banned then so should  movies with alcohol in them. It also states if the government bans alcohol advertising like they did tobacco advertising they are taking our freedom of speech away. He explains further by saying the government is giving permission to engage in risky behavior and then turn around and blame in on someone else.         Both passages provide very good reasoning for their beliefs. In my opinion the second passage takes the award for most convincing. The way they compared the advertising to a movie is what convinced me the most. It makes since to me. They can ban the alcohol advertising but it will still be in movies. Famous actors have a huge impact on youth today. If a teenager looks up to a celebrity for fashion advice then why would they not want to smoke like them? Also, the fact that they pretty much stated a person should be responsible for their own actions is golden to me. It is childish to blame your screw ups on something as petty as advertising.