Thank You for Smoking by Nick Naylor

Sneha Maknojia Professor Christopher Dunn English 1302- Essay One 27 February 2013 convey You for Smoking Thank You for smoking is ab by a lobbyist name snick Naylor who is the vice-president of Academy of tobacco studies. The movie revolves around how Nick fine-tune- talk of the t birthing tos e trulyone into believing that Tobacco is not very harmful. Nick Naylors chief(prenominal) job was to make people aw are of the research his academy does and answer questions on television regarding wellness claims against tobacco. Nick believed everyone has some sort of talent and he has the talent to talk people in or out of an agate line.He always k crude what to say and when he needs to say it. In the movie Thank You For Smoking the main character Nick Naylor shows the power of how line when it is done in a correct manner, which butt end make everything seem skilful. There were many instances in the movie when Nick showed the power of argument. In the movie he argued himself out of some otherwise argument. Throughout the movie Nick showed the power of ruse and power of argument from the smallest of things to very serious matters.The first instance I thought he showed his knowledge about argument is when he is with his tidings in Los Angeles and teaching him how you do not have to be right to win an argument. He is teaching his son an art of argument by saying that to win an argument all you have to do is to come up other persons argument wrong. The reason why I thought it was anatomy of an interesting philosophy of Nick Naylor is because it is kind of true some times you do not have to point yourself right.All you have to do is that prove the other person wrong which will automatically make you correct. The second time I thought Nick Naylor showed his power over arguing is at the beginning of the movie when he is at a television talk show and he was being criticized of how the academy is not doing anything to prevent the publication of deaths of chi ldren because of tobacco. Here again victimization his great skill of smooth lecture saying that why would a tobacco company would want their customers to die. over again he do a point which I thought was very logical.He put an end to this argument by claiming how academy is putting their receive money to help persuade kids not to smoke. Nick again using the power of his argument skills by putting the on us on the other guy instead of himself and let the other guy prove his case instead Nick trying to prove his. The third turn out of Nicks argument abilities is shown at the congressional hearing towards the end. When he was arguing on the issue of people being not certified copious about the perils of tobacco, he was asked to come in to prove that otherwise.Here again instead of proving his own point, Nick Naylor brought up a whole new argument to get peoples focus off from the tobacco argument. He made another valid point by saying that if tobaccos hazardous warning needs to be more prominent on its packaging because it is great danger to American people health than lay off have to have hazardous warning too. He argued that a covey Americans died because of cholesterol so they should put a more prominent danger warning on cheese related products too.Nick gave a great similitude about people being knowledgeable enough to make their own decisions. Just like cheese do not need a warning sign because people are aware of the danger of cholesterol by eating too much cheese, people who smoke are aware of the harm of tobacco. Its a person own plectron what they want to consume and what they do not, people are knowledgeable enough to know what is harmful to them and what is not. These claims that Nick have made about the dish antenna of arguing supports my thesis about how throughout the Nick Naylor showed the power of argument if it is done correctly.He argued with his counter parts in a manner that it neer looked like he was arguing. He talked in such a soft, smooth tone that sometime he was not the one who was defending the argument and it is the other way around. Some people think arguing never brings any good, but in this movie Nick Naylor showed how arguing, if done correctly, can persuade people to change their way of thinking. I thought the exist dialogue of Nick Naylor sums up his talent of arguing quiet brilliantly. Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent.