Discuss Question

Then, discuss the article on graphic warnings by O’Hegarty et al. The article concludes that the U.S. should use graphic warnings because graphic warnings are likely to be effective in the U.S. Is the research valid?

I would say that the research is still inconclusive to me because the company state all the warning signs and labels on how you can get cancer, lung disease, and strokes but the real question remain why put these dangerous products on the market. Some warning signs my stray others from using the products but some may still use them because their addicted or just doesn’t care.

Does it have any weaknesses?

The only weakness I see from the graphic warnings is that fact that these products stand by producing a item that they know for a fact causes these harmful affects.

Could the hypothesis be tested further?

Sure there is no problem with doing further testing but why continue to do further testing on a harmful product when companies can find out how to make a cigarettes without the harmful chemicals.

Would the use of graphic warnings be an example of the “appeal to fear” fallacy and, if so, would using them in an anti-smoking campaign be ethical?

I’m against smoking and I believe that using graphic warning would bring attention to the campaign. Sometime people need a reminder that even though smoking my feel good and helps you to relax, but at the same time you’re destroying your lungs and could die from cancer.