"Over the last three decades the number of individuals in the age grou
[#permalink]
03 Jan 2019, 06:44
The following appeared in a column by social welfare organisation:
"Over the last three decades the number of individuals in the age group 18-21 years, known to smoke cigarettes, has increased by 200%. During the same span the viewership of movies has increased by 300%. A survey suggests that two out of every three movies, show a popular actor smoking.Clearly, the smoking scenes are influencing the youth to indulge in hazardous habits. TO improve this situation, the government must intervene by either banning the smoking scenes in the movies or by limiting admission to persons over 21 years of age for viewing such movies."
RESPONSE:
The argument presents faulty evidence to make the claim that scenes of actors smoking in movies influence the individuals in the age group of 18-21 years to smoke cigarettes. This claim has been grounded in the fact that movie viewership has gone up as has the percentage of smokers in the specified age group. Furthermore, the argument suggests government intervention by the means of banning the smoking scenes from such movies or by restricting the admission of persons 21 or below 21 years of age from watching such movies. Although the case clearly delivers the point it takes stand for, it is based on a flawed line of reasoning and questionable assumptions.
Firstly, it compares the percentage figures for distinct populations. While viewership of movies has incresed by 300% cumulatively for all age groups, the percentage of increase in people smoking cigarettes has been mentioned for the individuals in age group of 18-21 years. This leads to an untenable conclusion regarding the correlation of both the aspects.
Secondly, the argument completely neglects the possibility of actors being shown to smoke because there is an increasing trend of smoking among the viewers. For instance, in order to make the scenes more relatable to the audience, the directors of movies may show the actors smoking as the individuals between 18-21 years of age are the target audience for the movies and there is an already increasing fad of smoking in that particular age group.
Lastly, suggestions regarding limiting the admission to movies to people above 21 years of age is based on the faulty presumption that there is no other mode available to the left out age group to watch the movies. It is implausible to believe that there does not exist any other alternative for watching the movies or that such alternatives are inaccesible to the supposedly outclassed individuals. The argument also fails to provide statistics or any other quantitative data regarding the proportion of individuals withing the age group od 18-21 years who do not watch movies but have still taken up smoking. It also lacks information regarding the proportion of smokers who believe to have been influenced by scenes of popular actors smoking on screen.
Had the argument mentioned other factors that could have led to people smoking or nullified the effect of such factors, the claims would have been more convincing. Absence of credibility of the source of figures, information about number of non-smokers who started smoking after watching movies, and facts about proposed plans for limiting the reach of such movies to the restrained audience leave the argument unsubtantiated and unreasonable.