Analysis of Wendy’s Introduction

     The title “Butt Out” is a real eye catcher.  The title roused my curiosity and made me wonder what the subject was about.

      In the first sentence, I felt I wanted to know more, but it left me hanging.  The sentence reads, “In the past few years, a battle between smokers and non-smokers has come to a boil.” Following this sentence was, “Even though non-smokers have been fairly quiet until now, they have always known that smoking was just as harmful to them as to the smoker.” At this point, I was looking for reference to an authority, to reinforce that non-smokers, and smokers had enough, it all came to a boil, non-smokers have been quiet, and that they have always known that smoking was harmful to them. There was nothing to back this up.

     Further, it states,  “As early as 1604, King James 1, repulsed by pipe smoking Londoners, blasted smoking as ‘a custom Loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain and dangerous to the lungs’” (Hamilton 41).  This sentence stated a quoted fact which I have no reason not to believe. The quote also supports the theme.

     Wendy goes on to write, “Today, unlike King James 1, non-smokers have proof to back their argument.”  This supports and adds credit King James 1 mentioned that smoking was harmful to the brain and dangerous to the lungs. It also emphasizes how long people have been concerned with health-problems related to smoking.

     The thesis statement – the last sentence in the paragraph - is really where I found out that she was going to write about, as she states “Smoking should be banned in public places because of the health dangers and the expense to innocent people.”    My opinion is that Wendy’s introduction needed more facts and to keep in line with the thesis statement. It was difficult for me to determine what introductory technique Wendy was using.  I finally decided on the technique “begin with a dramatic scene.”  In the beginning she mentions conflict.

--Robert Nelson, English 102 online, Fall 2001

Return to the Persuasive Analysis