Writing a Persuasion Essay Using Evidence
Learning Objective: - Write a multi-page persuasion essay and incorporate research to support personal opinion.
|
LESSON
A persuasion essayA writing that takes a position for or against something and tries to convince the reader to accept the same view. Also called an argument essay., which is sometimes referred to as an argument essayA writing that takes a position for or against something and tries to convince the reader to accept the same view. Also called a persuasion essay., is one of the most common writing assignments in college classes and is the type of writing most used in the working world. Writing effective persuasion essays is essential to your success in college, as well as in many aspects of your career since a resumeA brief written history of a person's education, work, and volunteer experience, submitted for the purpose of obtaining a job. and cover letterA letter that is sent along with a resume that provides context and more information for the reader. are types of persuasion essays convincing someone to hire you. In this lesson, you will learn the twelve-step process for writing a persuasion essay.
Step 1: Understand the assignment.
The first step in developing any essayA short piece of writing that focuses on at least one main idea. Some essays are also focused on the author's unique point of view, making them personal or autobiographical, while others are focused on a particular literary, scientific, or political subject. is making sure you understand the focus and scopeThe extent or aims of a project. of your assignment. Remember that a persuasion essay should incorporate researchThe use of outside sources as well as investigations and observations in order to form ideas and support claims. Also, the information obtained from such efforts. to support your personal opinionPoint of view that shows a personal belief or bias and cannot be proven to be completely true. on an issue. While the research is essential to provide evidentiary supportEvidence that supports the claims or viewpoints expressed in an essay and helps convince readers that an argument has merit. Evidentiary support may take the form of facts and statistics, expert opinions, or anecdotal evidence. for your claimA statement that something is true, such as the thesis of an essay. A successful writer must present evidence to prove his/her claim., the essay is not a summaryA brief restatement of an author’s main idea and major supporting details. Summaries are factual and should be written in the third-person with an objective point of view. of others' work. Additionally, be sure to read your assignment carefully before you begin and refer to it often throughout your writing process to make sure you stay on track.
Step 2: Write your thesis.
While it may be acceptable to start some essays without knowing what your thesisAn overall argument, idea, or belief that a writer uses as the basis for a work. will be, this is not a recommended strategy with a persuasion essay. Not only does the thesis statementA brief statement that identifies a writer's thoughts, opinions, or conclusions about a topic. Thesis statements bring unity to a piece of writing, giving it a focus and a purpose. You can use three questions to help form a thesis statement: What is my topic? What am I trying to say about that topic? Why is this important to me or my reader? help you to identify where to begin your research, it narrows your topicThe subject of a reading. so that you do not waste time and energy researching things that you will ultimately not use.
The thesis statement of a persuasion essay requires you to strongly convey a debatable position, which is why it is often referred to as an argument. It should be the type of statement that you know others will disagree with, not because the statement is wildly unconventional, but because it takes a position on a topic that is surprising or unusual to the reader.
Step 3: Research your topic.
Once you have developed your thesis statement, you are ready to begin researching your topic. You need to gather evidence to both provide the contextThe larger setting in which something happens; the "big picture." for your argument and to support the claims that you make in your argument. Whether you conduct your research using hard copies of newspapers, journals, magazines, books, or online sources such as blogsA website that hosts a series of articles, photos, and other postings, sometimes by a single writer (blogger) or by a community of contributors. and databases, it is essential that the sources be credibleDescribes a person who is trusted and able to be believed; reliable.. Evidentiary support may take the form of factsA piece of information that can be proven. Something that is true and indisputable. and statisticsA numerical value that provides information about something., expertSomeone who is very knowledgeable about a topic. opinionsPoint of view that shows a personal belief or bias and cannot be proven to be completely true., or anecdotal evidenceA brief, interesting story that supports a claim in a critical analysis or persuasion essay..
Step 4: Prewrite.
After gathering enough evidentiary support to begin shaping your main ideas and analysisTo analyze is to make a thoughtful and detailed study of something. An analysis is the end result of analyzing., some prewriting exercises may be useful in further refining how you wish to go about persuasively arguing your claim. For example, a graphic organizerPictorial tools used to brainstorm and arrange ideas before writing, such as webbing diagrams, flow charts, story maps, and Venn diagrams. or diagram may help you to group your thoughts and evidentiary support into appropriate subsections. A brainstormingA prewriting technique where the author lists multiple ideas as he or she thinks of them, not considering one more than another until all ideas are captured. The objective is to create one great idea, or many ideas, on which to base a writing. list is another prewriting tool you may use to organize the contentThe text in a writing that includes facts, thoughts, and ideas. The information that forms the body of the work. of your essay. Simply begin by writing your thesis statement at the top of a piece of paper. Then spend some time freethinkingA technique used in prewriting in which any and all ideas that come to mind are written down for later review. ideas that branch off from that thesis statement. OutliningA preliminary plan for a piece of a writing, often in the form of a list. It should include a topic, audience, purpose, thesis statement, and main and supporting points. is another good prewriting tactic. At this point, you may find you need to return to the research stage to find evidence to support new or more nuancedSubtle differences in meaning and style of expression. arguments, or you may be prepared to begin writing your essay.
Step 5: Write the body of your essay.
Begin writing your essay with a rough draftThe first version of a writing that will undergo rewriting, additions, and editing before it becomes the final draft. of the body of your essay, which is made up of well-developed body paragraphsThe part of an essay that comes after the introduction and before the conclusion. Body paragraphs lay out the main ideas of an argument and provide the support for the thesis. All body paragraphs should include these elements: a topic sentence, major and minor details, and a concluding statement. Each body paragraph should stand on its own but also fit into the context of the entire essay, as well as support the thesis and work with the other supporting paragraphs. for each of your supporting claims. These should include evidence from legitimate sources and explanation as to how the evidence supports the claim. CounterargumentsIdeas, data, or discussion in opposition to a viewpoint. , which are opposing viewpoints that argue against your thesis, should also be addressed in at least one paragraph. You can address them in three ways: as they come up in your claims, prior to delving into your own arguments in a one-paragraph overview of those opposing viewpoints, or after you present your claims, in a summary paragraph.
Step 6: Identify gaps in your argument.
Once you've completed the first draft of your essay, outlining your rough draft can be a useful way to expand your ideas, remove unneeded and/or confusing material (in other words, that which does little to add to your essay and may actually detract from its persuasive power), and identify gaps in your argument. Additionally, consider the flow of your essay. You may need to add or revise transitionsTying two events, passages, or pieces of information together in a smooth way. In writing, transitions are sometimes called links. and/or linksTo connect ideas together within a paragraph or to create a transition from one paragraph to the next, as well as back to the thesis. between paragraphs in order to make your essay one continuous and cohesive piece.
Step 7: Do more research.
At this point, you may need to do more research to fill in the gaps you discovered in the prior step. Fill in these holes and answer any questions that your outline reveals. If you are unable to see any gaps in your reasoning, it may help to ask a friend or colleague to review your draft. If you have adequate and relevant evidence that you tied into the claim you make, the reader will likely not have very many questions. However, if the reader is confused about any of your points, you may not have adequately defended your position. Have your reader note any arguments that you cannot defend or any points that you make that are not currently in your essay. Focus on these questions as you further research and write the final draft of your essay.
Step 8: Write a conclusion.
It may seem strange to write your conclusionThe end portion of a writing that contains a summary or synthesis of the idea in the work. This includes a recap of key points and reminders of the author's purpose and thesis statement. before your introduction, but sometimes doing this can help you focus your ideas. It is somewhat like giving directions. You need to know where you want your reader to end up before you can lead him or her there. Remember that a strong conclusion summarizes and synthesizesTo combine ideas, as in the writing at the end of an essay that ties all the discussion and evidence together into a unified concept. the most important details of your persuasion essay. It reminds the reader of your thesis—without simply restating it with a few minor changes—and reinforces your main pointsThe most important idea in a paragraph. Main points support the main idea of a reading.. In the case of a persuasion essay, it is also the last opportunity to convince the reader of your position on the issue.
Step 9: Write an introduction.
Now that you know where you want your reader to end up, go back to the introductionThe first paragraph of an essay. It must engage the reader, set the tone, provide background information, and present the thesis. and prepare the way. An effective introduction contains four elements:
- HookIn writing, a device used to grab a readers' attention, often in the form of interesting, surprising, or provocative information.
- ToneThe feeling or attitude that a writer expresses toward a topic. The words the writer chooses express this tone. Examples of tones can include: objective, biased, humorous, optimistic, and cynical, among many others.
- BackgroundInformation that describes the history or circumstances of a topic.
- Thesis
A good introductory paragraph to a persuasion essay hooks the reader with a compelling idea, sets the tone for the remainder of the essay, provides any necessary background or context for the reader, and presents your debatable thesis statement.
Step 10: Cite your sources.
While a persuasion essay is going to rely heavily upon your own interpretation of other sources, it is still critical to citeTo give credit to the source of ideas or information. your sourcesA person, book, article, or other thing that supplies information. by incorporating attributive phrasesA short introduction to source material that identifies the author and often the title of a work that will be quoted or discussed in an essay or research paper. and in-text citationsInformation about a source, such as the author, date, and page number, in an essay or research paper that helps readers find the source in the works cited or references page. There are different rules for how to use in-text citations depending on the context of the citation and the style of formatting you are using..
Attributive phrases are useful when you are summarizing, paraphrasingThe use of different words to express the meaning of an original text or speech., or quotingTo use the exact words of someone else in a writing. Quotes are indicted in a writing using quotation marks and attributive phrases. a source. Not only do they indicate to your reader that you are incorporating a source, they provide the context for that source.
In-text citations are used in addition to attributive phrases when you incorporate a source into your essay. In-text citations give the readers the necessary information to be able to find the original sources listed in the works cited pageAn alphabetized list of publication information about the sources used in an MLA-formatted essay or research paper. or reference listAn alphabetized list of publication information about the sources used in an APA-formatted essay or research paper..
An MLAA grammar and reference guide used mainly by students and scholars writing about the humanities (languages and literature). in-text citation should include the author's last name and the page number (if a specific numbered page is referenced). If the author's name is mentioned in the attributive phrase, only the page number should be included in parentheses. An APAA set of guidelines for citing sources used in literary and academic writing. APA style is most commonly used in the social sciences. in-text citation should include the author's last name, the year of publication, and the page number (if a specific numbered page is referenced). If the author's name is mentioned in the attributive phrase, the year of publication in parentheses should follow it. Depending on the location of the attributive phase, the page number should either be included after the year, or be placed within its own parentheses at the end of the sentence.
Step 11: Create a works cited page or reference list.
The in-text citations do not include all the information to find the original source, so writers include a list at the end of the paper with all the information needed to locate a source. MLA refers to this list as a works cited page while APA refers to it as a reference list. Both types of citations pages come at the end of the work and include information needed to locate a source, including articleA non-fiction, often informative writing that forms a part of a publication, such as a magazine or newspaper. title, journal/book title, year published, authors, and publisher. These details vary by the type of source used, and since there are many types of sources, you should refer to a style guide to confirm the correct citation model to use. All sources on a works cited page or reference list should be listed in alphabetical order by author's last name.
Step 12: ReviseThe process of making changes to a work by editing and proofreading it to improve, correct, and increase clarity. your essay.
When you have a suitable draft of your essay, ask yourself these questions:
- Have I followed the assignment?
- Is this a persuasion essay? Is my thesis statement debatable? Is my claim narrow enough?
- Do my body paragraphs provide counterarguments and ideas to support my thesis?
- Have I asked someone to read my essay to assess the strength of my evidentiary support? Does a read-through of my essay leave others with unanswered questions?
- Is all of my evidentiary support relevant?
- Do I need more or less evidentiary support? Would it be helpful to highlight the main ideas, evidentiary support, and analysis sentences in each paragraph to further identify gaps or needed revisions?
- Do I provide adequate analysis of the materials?
- Do I need to move or remove any of my analysis?
- Have I included the transitions necessary to guide the reader from introduction to body paragraphs to conclusion paragraph?
- Does my conclusion synthesize the critical details?
- Does my introduction hook the reader, provide adequate background/introduction to my topic and clearly articulate my thesis statement?
Review and revise your entire essay with these questions in mind. Remember, you may need to add information, remove information, or reorganize your writing. Being a careful reviewer of your own work is essential to a quality essay. When you have completed this step, be sure to go back one more time to verify that your grammarA set of rules about how words are used in a particular language., spelling, and punctuationMarks such as such as a comma (,), period (.), question mark (?), and exclamation mark (!), among others, that help break a writing into phrases, clauses, and sentences. Different types of punctuation marks give the reader different impressions of the writer’s purpose in that sentence. are correct.
+ PRACTICAL APPLICATIONA persuasion essay is a written argument in which you state a claim regarding a certain issue. You may find that you need to argue your case in school as well as in your personal and/or professional life. Your professors may ask you to prepare not only written persuasion pieces but also oralSpoken aloud, as in oral arguments made in a court of law. arguments. It is a skill that will serve you well when you want to persuadeTo convince someone of a claim or idea. your professor you are the strongest candidate for that assistant position in the new biology laboratory, or when you want to win the new marketing account at the office. The ability to assert and back up your position with evidentiary support is also useful in personal relationships, in a sales situation, or in any circumstance in which you feel strongly and passionately about an issue.
+ EXAMPLERead the following example that demonstrates how to write a multi-page persuasion essay following the twelve-step writing process above. The essay follows MLA citation rules. A final version of the same essay in APA style follows.
Step 1: Understand the assignment.
The assignment is to write a persuasion essay. The first step is to choose a controversial topic about which I have a strong opinion.
I choose to write about the practice of cities banning pit bulls because some people believe they are too dangerous to be around people.
Step 2: Write your thesis.
Thesis statement: Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.
Step 3: Research your topic.
- Search the Internet for discussion on legislation banning pit bulls. Find both pro and con sites.
- Learn more about the history and characteristics of pit bulls. What do people like and fear about them?
- Look up dog attack statistics. How dangerous are pit bulls and how do they compare to other dogs?
- Document the results of pit bull bans that have already been passed. How do owners respond? Are they enforceable? Effective? Do dog bites decrease?
Step 4: Prewrite.
There are many different prewriting methods. Creating an outline is a good way to organize ideas.
- Introductory Paragraph
- Hook: Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now, some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill.
- Tone: Purposeful and fair, but with conviction.
- Background: In the last few decades, most of the outrage over dog bites has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls.
- Thesis: Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.
- Body Paragraphs
- Counterarguments
- Opposing viewpoint 1: Pit bulls are inherently aggressive, unpredictable, and dangerous because they are bred to fight.
- Opposing viewpoint 2: Statistics show that pit bulls attack and kill more people than any other dogs.
- Opposing viewpoint 3: Pit bulls are used in illegal, unwanted activities such as dog fighting and drug dealing.
- Opposing viewpoint 4: People are justifiably frightened of pit bulls, and the public should not be afraid to walk the sidewalks or parks.
- Transition to support for thesis: Most of these arguments can be shown to be wrong or irrelevant. The public does deserve to walk outside without fear of dog attacks, but banning pit bulls will not make that happen.
- Main Supporting Point 1: Pit bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs.
- Evidence: There is no such breed as a "pit bull."
- Analysis: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, even though each has its own disposition and characteristics.
- Evidence: Historically, the kinds of dogs now called pit bulls were praised as smart, brave, reliable family pets.
- Analysis: Although pit bulls have a reputation for viciousness today, not long ago they were praised as loyal and brave. They were popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on TV. Despite their current unsavory reputation, the animals are regularly used as seeing eye, therapy, search and rescue, military, and police dogs. Clearly these animals are not all wild killers.
- Evidence: Aggressiveness is more a matter of socialization and training than genetics.
- Evidence: The statistics on attacks by "pit bull type" dogs are flawed and unreliable.
- Analysis: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) records show pit bulls are responsible for more than thirty percent of fatal attacks on humans. But the same study says these statistics are unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull, especially given their reputation.
- Link: Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted.
- Main Supporting Point 2: Pit bull bans will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety.
- Evidence: Enforcement is very difficult.
- Analysis: Since there really is no "pit bull" breed, there's no way to consistently enforce a ban.
- Evidence: If pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary looking dogs will just switch to another large breed. Banning a breed can also make them even more popular among criminals.
- Evidence: Bans drive pit bull owners underground. Dogs remain in the community, but are much less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care.
- Analysis: Dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately.
- Analysis: Veterinarians can help owners identify potentially dangerous traits and direct them to proper training. Vaccinated dogs that do bite will at least not spread disease. Licensed dogs are easier for animal control to identify and keep track of.
- Analysis: Past attempts at breed-specific legislation show that problems and fears do simply shift to another breed. For example, from German Shepherds in the seventies to Dobermans in the eighties to Pit Bulls now.
- Evidence: All types of dogs can and do bite. Eliminating pit bulls will not prevent dog attacks.
- Analysis: CDC statistics do show that all dog breeds have been known to bite, and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs.
- Link: A number of states have found pit bull bans so problematic that they now forbid breed-specific laws (Campbell).
- Main Supporting Point 3: It is more effective to remove individual problem dogs than to ban entire breeds.
- Evidence: It's a waste of time and limited resources to find and remove dogs that are not causing problems.
- Evidence: By paying more attention to complaints about uncontrolled or aggressive dogs and sanctioning owners who do not correct problems, bad behavior may be corrected before it escalates. Many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws.
- Analysis: Every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs present and the types of human/dog interactions. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings.
- Analysis: Many dog bites are caused by unleashed or free-roaming dogs. Stricter enforcement of leash laws would make a huge difference.
- Analysis: Animal control departments are generally underfunded and understaffed. Complaints about aggressive or loose dogs are hard to follow up on. Better funding would make it easier for cities to investigate and correct problem dogs and their owners.
- Link: Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all legislation.
- Concluding Paragraph
- Synthesis: Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense.
- Final impression: The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.
Step 5: Write the body of your essay.
Many people say it makes sense to ban pit bulls from cities because they are simply too dangerous to be around. They point to statistics showing that these animals attack and kill more humans than any other dog breed. Citizens have a right to walk down the street or visit a park without fear, but that isn't possible when pit bulls are around. Pit bulls are bred to attack and to fight to the death, and this has made the breed unpredictable and aggressive. Proponents of bans also claim that besides injuring and killing people and pets, pit bulls are tied to other illegal activities. They are the most common breed used in dog fighting, and they seem to be the guard dog of choice for drug dealers and other criminals. Banning pit bulls could go a long way in discouraging those kinds of unsavory behaviors, according to the pro-ban crowd. These arguments may sound persuasive, but a closer look shows that they range from irrelevant to downright wrong.
A closer look at pit bulls and the hype surrounding them shows that they are not more dangerous than other dogs. For one thing, it turns out that there is no such breed as a pit bull. The ASPCA says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. This fact negates the claims that pit bulls are both genetically and actually more aggressive than other canines. Although pit bull type dogs have a reputation for viciousness today, for most of the 1900s they were praised as loyal and brave, popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on TV. Animal behaviorists and veterinarians also point out that aggressiveness in dogs is related far more to socialization and training than to breeding. Dogs aren't born bad; they're made that way by irresponsible owners.
Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. While government records do list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the same study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull.
Another major flaw with pit bull bans is that they will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety. Because there's really no such thing as a pit bull, there's no easy or consistent way to enforce such a ban. However, fear for their dogs would drive pit bull owners underground, meaning the dogs would remain in the community, but be less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care. This is bad all around, because dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately. In addition, if pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary looking dogs will just switch to another large breed. Banning a breed might even make them more popular among criminals. The same statistics referenced above show that all dog breeds have been known to bite, and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs.
I suggest that the best way to reduce injuries and deaths is to focus on removing individual problem dogs rather than banning entire breeds. Many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws. Every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs that are present and the ways in which humans and dogs interact. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings. Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size fits all legislation.
Step 6: Identify gaps in your argument.
- Counterarguments
- Include statistics and/or citation on pit bull attacks.
- Add a better transition from counterargument to arguments.
- Pit bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs.
- Provide examples of good behavior in pit bulls to contrast with bad reputation.
- Pit bull bans will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety.
- Any data on the results of breed-specific bans? How have they worked in the past?
- It is more effective to focus on removing individual problem dogs than banning entire breeds.
- Include more alternative ways to reduce dog attacks.
Step 7: Do more research.
- Find out if other types of dogs have been banned in the past. What was the result over the long term?
- Check anti-ban debates for specifics on other ways to reduce attacks.
- Check for more recent statistics on pit bulls and other dogs.
Step 8: Write a conclusion.
Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense. Dog attacks are tragic, and every reasonable step should be taken to make them even rarer than they already are. But taking beloved pets and useful service dogs away from those who treasure them is not the answer. Those who know the most about the situation – health officials who study dog bites and fatalities, and professional organizations of animal trainers and caregivers – agree that pit bull type dogs have been falsely accused. The statistics that claim to show their aggressiveness are flawed and have been exaggerated by media hype. Dogs, like people, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.
Step 9: Write an introduction.
Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now, some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill. Although deaths are rare, they are horrifying and tend to raise a public outcry. In the last few decades, most of the outrage has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls. Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the public from danger have not and will not work. Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.
Step 10: Cite your sources.
- Paragraph 2, paraphrase: statistics on pit bull attacks from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, pages 836-837
- Paragraph 3, paraphrase: ASPCA pit bull breed information from ASPCA.org, no page
- Paragraph 3, paraphrase: aggressiveness linked to socialization and breeding from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, page 839
- Paragraph 4, paraphrase: study information from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, page 838
- Paragraph 5, direct quote: Sacks et al. caution that "any dog of any breed has the potential to bite" from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, page 838
- Paragraph 6, paraphrase: Community-based approach to dog attacks from American Veterinary Medical Association, page 1733
Step 11: Create a works cited or references page.
Works Cited
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "The Truth about Pit Bulls." ASPCA. APSCA, 2014, https://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/aspca-pitbulls- nursemaid-dog-july-2014.pdf.
American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction. "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 218, no. 11, 2001, pp. 1732-49, https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf.
Campbell, Dana M. "Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed–Specific Legislation." GP-Solo, vol. 26, no. 5, 2009, pp. 36-41, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23673613?seq=1.
Sacks, Jeffrey, et al. "Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 217, no. 6, 2000, pp. 836-40.
Step 12: Revise your essay.
Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to all MLA guidelines for final essays.
MLA citation style
Ban the Biters, Not the Pit Bulls
Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill. Although deaths are rare, they are horrifying and tend to raise a public outcry. In the last few decades, most of the outrage has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls. Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the public from danger have not and will not work. Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.
Many people say it makes sense to ban pit bulls from cities because they are simply too dangerous to be around. They point to statistics showing that these animals attack and kill more humans than any other dog breed (Sacks et al. 836-37). They say that citizens have a right to walk down the street or visit a park without fear, but that isn't possible when pit bulls are around. Some people think that pit bulls have been bred to attack and to fight to the death, and this has made the breed unpredictable and aggressive. Proponents of bans also claim that besides injuring and killing people and pets, pit bulls are tied to other illegal activities. They are supposedly the most common breed used in dog fighting, and the guard dog of choice for drug dealers and other criminals. Banning pit bulls could go a long way in discouraging those kinds of unsavory behaviors, according to the pro-ban crowd. These arguments may sound persuasive, but careful examination shows that they range from irrelevant to downright wrong. The public does indeed deserve to walk outside without fear of a dog attack, but banning pit bulls will not make that happen.
A closer look at pit bulls and the hype surrounding them shows that they are not more dangerous than other dogs. For one thing, there is no such breed as a pit bull. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. This fact negates the claims that pit bulls are both genetically and actually more aggressive than other canines. Although pit bull type dogs have a reputation for viciousness today, for most of the nineteen hundreds they were praised as loyal and brave, popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on television (ASPCA). Even with their current bad reputation, the animals are regularly used as seeing eye, therapy, and search and rescue dogs. Clearly, they are not all uncontrollable killers. Animal behaviorists and veterinarians also point out that aggressiveness in dogs is related far more to socialization and training than to breeding (Sacks et al. 839). Dogs aren't born bad, they're made that way by irresponsible owners.
Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. While the study by Sacks and others does list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull (838).
Another major flaw with pit bull bans is that they will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety. Because there's really no such thing as a pit bull, there's no easy or consistent way to enforce such a ban. However, fear for their dogs would drive pit bull owners underground, meaning the dogs would remain in the community, but be less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care (Sacks et al. 840). This would be a very negative consequence, because according to the ASPCA, dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately. In addition, the study by Sacks and others cautions that "any dog of any breed has the potential to bite" and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs (838). Basically, if pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary-looking dogs will likely switch to another large breed. Banning a breed might even make them more popular among criminals. This is why a number of states have found pit bull bans so problematic that they now forbid breed-specific laws (Campbell 38). Attempts at breed-specific legislation show that problems and fears simply shift to another breed. For example, over the past several decades the public's image of dangerous dogs has changed from German Shepherds to Dobermans to pit bulls.
The best way to reduce injuries and deaths from dog bites is to focus on removing individual problem dogs rather than banning entire breeds. The American Veterinary Medical Association recommends a community-based approach to the issue (1733). It says that many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws. It is a waste of time and resources to find and remove dogs that are not causing problems, especially since animal control departments are generally underfunded and understaffed (American Veterinary Medical Association 1736). By paying more attention to complaints about specific uncontrolled or aggressive dogs and sanctioning owners who do not correct problems, bad behavior may be corrected before it escalates. Additionally, every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs that are present and the ways in which humans and dogs interact. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings. Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all legislation.
Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense. Dog attacks are tragic, and every reasonable step should be taken to make them even rarer than they already are. But taking beloved pets and useful service dogs away from those who treasure them is not the answer. Those who know the most about the situation – health officials who study dog bites and fatalities, and professional organizations of animal trainers and caregivers – agree that pit bull type dogs have been falsely accused. The statistics that claim to show their aggressiveness are flawed and have been exaggerated by media hype. Dogs, like people, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.
Works Cited
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "The Truth about Pit Bulls." ASPCA. APSCA, 2014, https://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/aspca-pitbulls-nursemaid-dog-july-2014.pdf.
American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction. "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 218, no. 11, 2001, pp. 1732-49, https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf.
Campbell, Dana M. "Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed–Specific Legislation." GP-Solo, vol. 26, no. 5, 2009, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23673613?seq=1.
Sacks, Jeffrey, et al. "Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 217, no. 6, 2000, pp. 836-40.
Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to all APA guidelines for final essays.
APA citation style
Ban the Biters, Not the Pit Bulls
Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill. Although deaths are rare, they are horrifying and tend to raise a public outcry. In the last few decades, most of the outrage has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls. Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the public from danger have not and will not work. Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.
Many people say it makes sense to ban pit bulls from cities because they are simply too dangerous to be around. They point to statistics showing that these animals attack and kill more humans than any other dog breed (Sacks et al, 2000, pp. 836-837). They say that citizens have a right to walk down the street or visit a park without fear, but that isn't possible when pit bulls are around. Some people think that pit bulls have been bred to attack and to fight to the death, and this has made the breed unpredictable and aggressive. Proponents of bans also claim that besides injuring and killing people and pets, pit bulls are tied to other illegal activities. They are supposedly the most common breed used in dog fighting, and the guard dog of choice for drug dealers and other criminals. Banning pit bulls could go a long way in discouraging those kinds of unsavory behaviors, according to the pro-ban crowd. These arguments may sound persuasive, but careful examination shows that they range from irrelevant to downright wrong. The public does indeed deserve to walk outside without fear of a dog attack, but banning pit bulls will not make that happen.
A closer look at pit bulls and the hype surrounding them shows that they are not more dangerous than other dogs. For one thing, there is no such breed as a pit bull. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA, 2014) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. This fact negates the claims that pit bulls are both genetically and actually more aggressive than other canines. Although pit bull type dogs have a reputation for viciousness today, for most of the nineteen hundreds they were praised as loyal and brave, popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on television (ASPCA, 2014). Even with their current bad reputation, the animals are regularly used as seeing eye, therapy, and search and rescue dogs. Clearly, they are not all uncontrollable killers. Animal behaviorists and veterinarians also point out that aggressiveness in dogs is related far more to socialization and training than to breeding (Sacks et al., 2000, p. 839). Dogs aren't born bad, they're made that way by irresponsible owners.
Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. While the study by Sacks et al. (2000) does list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull (p. 838).
Another major flaw with pit bull bans is that they will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety. Because there's really no such thing as a pit bull, there's no easy or consistent way to enforce such a ban. However, fear for their dogs would drive pit bull owners underground, meaning the dogs would remain in the community, but be less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care (Sacks et al., 2000, p. 840). This would be a very negative consequence, because according to the ASPCA, dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately. In addition, the study by Sacks et al. (2000) cautions that "any dog of any breed has the potential to bite," and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs (p. 838). Basically, if pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary-looking dogs will likely switch to another large breed. Banning a breed might even make them more popular among criminals. This is why a number of states have found pit bull bans so problematic that they now forbid breed-specific laws (Campbell, 2009). Attempts at breed-specific legislation show that problems and fears simply shift to another breed. For example, over the past several decades the public's image of dangerous dogs has changed from German Shepherds to Dobermans to pit bulls.
The best way to reduce injuries and deaths from dog bites is to focus on removing individual problem dogs rather than banning entire breeds. The American Veterinary Medical Association (2001) recommends a community-based approach to the issue (p. 1733). It says that many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws. It is a waste of time and resources to find and remove dogs that are not causing problems, especially since animal control departments are generally underfunded and understaffed (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2001, p. 1736). By paying more attention to complaints about specific uncontrolled or aggressive dogs and sanctioning owners who do not correct problems, bad behavior may be corrected before it escalates. Additionally, every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs that are present and the ways in which humans and dogs interact. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings. Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all legislation.
Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense. Dog attacks are tragic, and every reasonable step should be taken to make them even rarer than they already are. But taking beloved pets and useful service dogs away from those who treasure them is not the answer. Those who know the most about the situation – health officials who study dog bites and fatalities, and professional organizations of animal trainers and caregivers – agree that pit bull type dogs have been falsely accused. The statistics that claim to show their aggressiveness are flawed and have been exaggerated by media hype. Dogs, like people, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.
References
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (2014). The truth about pit bulls. http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls
American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction. (2001). A community approach to dog bite prevention. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218(11), 1732-1749. doi:10.2460/javma.2001.218.1732
Campbell, D. M. (2009). Pit bull bans: The state of breed–specific legislation. GP-Solo, 26(5). http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/pitbull.html
Sacks, J., Sinclair, L., Gilchrist, J., Golab, G., & Lockwood, R. (2000). Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 217(6), 836-840. doi:0.2460/javma.2000.217.836
+ YOUR TURNNow it's your turn to write a multi-page (600 - 900 words) persuasion essay following the twelve-step writing process. For your topic, take a position on a debatable subject.
Topic ideas:
- Whether cigarette smoking should be allowed or banned in all outdoor public spaces.
- Whether or not motorcyclists should be required to wear helmets.
- Whether or not public transportation (such as city buses) should be funded by taxes and free to all people.
Be sure to incorporate research to support your personal opinion. You may use either MLA or APA format for your citations, depending on your instructor's preference. (The sample student work follows MLA style; an alternate version of the final paper using APA style is also provided.)
Step 1: Understand the assignment.
What is the assignment?
The assignment is to write a multi-page persuasion essay on a debatable topic. The first step is to choose my topic and position: my choice is to argue that cigarette smoking should be banned in outdoor public areas.
Step 2: Write your thesis.
Write your thesis statement.
Thesis statement: Cigarette smoking should be banned in all outdoor public spaces.
Step 3: Research your topic.
Indicate how you will research the topic.
- Search the internet for discussion on banning outdoor smoking. Find both pro and con sites.
- Look up statistics on health and financial costs of smoking.
- Check for studies on the potency of secondhand smoke outside.
- Find out how cigarette litter affects the environment.
Step 4: Prewrite.
Pick a method of prewriting. Show your brainstorming here.
I choose to outline my essay to help organize my ideas.
- Introductory Paragraph
- Hook: Story of cigarette smoke being clouds that are all around.
- Tone: Purposeful and fair, but with conviction.
- Background: Take a deep breath, and it's not flowers you smell. Run barefoot through the park, but it isn't just grass you're stepping on. It's cigarettes, and butts, and it's time to put a stop to it.
- Thesis: Cigarette smoking should be banned in all outdoor public spaces.
- Body Paragraphs
- Counterarguments
- Opposing viewpoint 1: People have the right to do what they want, even if it's dangerous.
- Opposing viewpoint 2: Outdoor smoking doesn't harm anyone but the smoker. It may be annoying to some, but other annoying activities are still legal in public.
- Opposing viewpoint 3: Banning smoking outside starts us down a slippery slope of government interference in what we do with our bodies. What's next, laws against eating hot dogs and ice cream cones, or requiring everyone to wear sunscreen?
- Opposing viewpoint 4: Lots of activities create litter, but no one is calling for a ban on picnics or gum chewing.
- Transition to support for thesis: The U.S. has many laws regulating public behavior, and a ban on cigarettes would just be one more.
- Transition to support for thesis: Smoking does cause health problems for non-smokers, as well as damage to natural resources.
- Main Supporting Point 1: Reducing smoking is a compelling governmental interest.
- Evidence: Every day, 1,300 Americans die from smoking-related diseases. Every year, the country spends 133 billion dollars on medical care for smokers, and these costs are passed along to everyone who pays taxes or insurance premiums. (U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services)
- Analysis: Smoking causes a host of deadly and fatal diseases, while having no redeeming value.
- Analysis: Smoking drives up medical costs for everyone, even non-smokers, and is a burden on taxpayers.
- Evidence: Studies reported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) show that nearly seventy percent of smokers want to quit. Public smoking bans make smoking less social and more of a hassle, which may help discourage the practice.
- Analysis: Despite all the well-publicized health risks, large numbers of people keep smoking, while others start smoking.
- Analysis: There is no natural or legal right to engage in activities that cause harm to other people or to public resources.
- Link: It's true that we need to protect our rights with fierceness, but there is no natural or legal right to engage in activities that cause harm to other people or to public resources. And smoking is harmful.
- Major Supporting Point 2: Outdoor smoking poses health risks to non-smokers.
- Evidence: Studies have shown that smoking outside produces high, concentrated levels of air pollution, sufficient to endanger the health of people nearby, especially those with existing medical issues. (Stanford study, 2007)
- Analysis: Secondhand smoke, even in outdoor spaces, exposes non-smokers to dangerous chemicals.
- Evidence: Many municipalities and private businesses have already restricted or banned smoking in crowded outdoor areas because customers, employees, or the public were troubled by large amounts of cigarette smoke.
- Analysis: Although smoke can dissipate quickly outside, smokers often congregate in small areas, such as in outdoor workplaces, near doorways, and at bus stops, beaches, parks, and concerts. This can produce a lot of smoke in a small area.
- Evidence: Outdoor smokers often throw their butts on the ground, where they can cause dangerous fires.
- Evidence: The U.S. Forest Service (2013) reports that discarded smoking materials cause an average of two hundred wildfires each year.
- Analysis: In crowded conditions, such as on busy sidewalks, non-smokers are at risk of cigarette burns or getting ash in their eyes or on their clothing.
- Link: Besides the dangers of inhaling smoke, non-smokers are at risk of cigarette burns or getting ash in their eyes or on their clothing in crowded conditions, such as on busy sidewalks.
- Main Supporting Point 3: Discarded cigarette butts ruin outdoor experiences, pollute the environment, and cost a significant amount of money to clean up.
- Evidence: The city of San Francisco alone reports that it spends over six million dollars a year cleaning up after outdoor smokers.
- Evidence: In 2014, as in every previous year, the Ocean Conservancy identified cigarette butts as the number one most littered item; in just one day, volunteers picked up more than two million butts on beaches worldwide.
- Analysis: Outdoor spaces frequented by smokers quickly become littered with cigarette butts, which look and smell bad, leave stains, and are hard to clean up.
- Analysis: Taxpayers have to foot large bills to clean up cigarette butts and other tobacco-related litter.
- Evidence: Cigarette butts are a long-lasting source of toxic materials that leach out into soils and waterways.
- Analysis: Cigarette butts cause soil and water pollution.
- Evidence: Animals frequently swallow cigarette butts, and are sickened or killed by indigestible fibers and dangerous levels of nicotine and other chemicals.
- Link: The National Institutes of Health (2011) reports that cigarettes contain four thousand chemicals, including heavy metals, carcinogens, pesticides, and herbicides, and can act as long-lasting point sources of pollution.
- Concluding Paragraph
- Synthesis: When it comes to smoking in outdoor public spaces, it isn't just noses at risk. Smoking is a health risk for bystanders, a major source of toxic debris, and a drain on public resources.
- Final impression: Despite great initial resistance, indoor smoking bans are now widespread and popular. It's time to take them outside, and ban smoking there, too.
Step 5: Write the body of your essay.
Write a rough draft of the body paragraphs of your essay.
To some, banning cigarette smoking in outdoor spaces feels like an assault on both common sense and the American way. Most of us believe that people have the right to do what they want, even if it's foolish or dangerous, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Since smoke floats away so quickly in the open air, it's merely an annoyance in the great outdoors. We don't have laws against being annoying in public—if we did, no one would be able to wear socks with sandals in my town. It's true that smokers sometimes throw their butts out irresponsibly, but many other legal activities create litter too. Many people feel that outdoor smoking bans send us further down that slippery slope of unwarranted government interference in what we do with our bodies. What will be next? Laws against eating ice cream cones in public, or requiring everyone to wear sunscreen?
Anti-smoking laws are in place for good reason: the government has a compelling interest in reducing smoking. The habit drives up health care costs and is a financial and emotional burden on society. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1,300 Americans die from smoking-related diseases every day. Every year, the country spends $133 billion dollars on medical care for smokers, and these costs are passed along to everyone who pays taxes or buys health insurance. If outdoor bans make smoking less socially acceptable and more of a hassle, they may help discourage the unhealthy practice. It's true that we need to protect our rights with fierceness, but there is no natural or legal right to engage in activities that cause harm to other people or to public resources. And smoking is harmful.
Evidence is mounting that outdoor smoking poses health risks to non-smokers, through exposure to secondhand smoke and contact with hot ash and burning cigarettes. Secondhand smoke, even in outdoor spaces, exposes non-smokers to dangerous chemicals. Studies are beginning to show that even outdoors, smoke plumes have enough concentrated particulate matter to endanger the health of people nearby, especially those with existing medical issues. Although smoke can dissipate quickly outside, smokers often congregate in small areas, such as in outdoor workplaces, near doorways, and at bus stops, beaches, parks, and concerts. This can produce a lot of smoke in a small area. Outdoor smoke is so irritating that many thousands of cities and private businesses have already restricted or banned smoking in crowded outdoor areas. Besides the dangers of inhaling smoke, non-smokers are at risk of cigarette burns or getting ash in their eyes or on their clothing in crowded conditions, such as on busy sidewalks.
A final and indisputable reason to ban smoking in public spaces is that discarded cigarette butts ruin outdoor experiences and pollute the environment. It only takes a single walk outside to see that areas frequented by smokers quickly become littered with cigarette butts, which look and smell bad, leave stains, and are an expensive mess to clean up. Taxpayers have to foot large bills to clean up cigarette butts and other tobacco-related litter: the city of San Francisco alone reports that it spends over six million dollars a year cleaning up after outdoor smokers. The cost to the environment is even higher: cigarettes cause soil and water pollution and threaten wildlife. Animals frequently swallow butts, and are sickened or killed by indigestible fibers and dangerous levels of nicotine and other chemicals. Discarded cigarettes are a long-lasting source of toxic materials that leach out into soils and waterways. The National Institutes of Health reports that cigarettes contain four thousand chemicals, including heavy metals, carcinogens, pesticides, and herbicides, and can act as long-lasting point sources of pollution.
Step 6: Identify gaps in your argument.
Indicate where you would like to add information to your essay.
- Counterarguments
- Need response to the slippery slope argument.
- Reducing smoking is a compelling governmental interest.
- Outdoor smoking poses health risks to non-smokers.
- Some sources suggest secondhand smoke dangers may be overblown. Double check information.
- Discarded cigarette butts ruin outdoor experiences, pollute the environment, and cost a lot of money to clean up.
- Are there other environmental costs?
Step 7: Do more research.
Indicate how you will do more research to fill in gaps in your argument.
- Find out if there have been legal challenges to outdoor smoking bans. Have any bans been reversed?
- Try to quantify environmental impact of cigarette butts.
Step 8: Write a conclusion.
Write a concluding paragraph.
We Americans pride ourselves on having a tolerant and free society. But we've also long acknowledged that there are limits to freedom, as in the old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." When it comes to smoking in outdoor public spaces, it isn't just noses at risk. Smoking is a health risk for bystanders, a major source of toxic debris, and a drain on public resources. Less than twenty percent of Americans smoke, but their bad habit interferes with the rights of everyone else to be safe and happy outdoors. Despite great initial resistance, indoor smoking bans are now widespread and popular. It's time to take them outside, and ban smoking there, too.
Step 9: Write an introduction.
Write an introductory paragraph.
Summer is here at last, and people are happily stepping out to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine. But there's a cloud on the horizon. And another one in front of that doorway. And over there, hovering around that outdoor café. Clouds everywhere – clouds of cigarette smoke. Take a deep breath, and it's not flowers you smell. Run barefoot through the park, but it isn't just grass you're stepping on. It's cigarettes, and butts, and it's time to put a stop to it. It's time to ban smoking in all outdoor public spaces.
Step 10: Cite your sources.
List your sources and locations for in-text citations.
- Paragraph 3, paraphrase: statistics on deaths and medical care for smokers from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, page 679
- Paragraph 4, paraphrase: dangers of secondhand smoke from Klepeis, Ott, and Switzer, no page
- Paragraph 4, paraphrase: cities and private businesses that restricted or banned smoking in crowded outdoor areas from CBSNews.org, no page
- Paragraph 5, paraphrase: over $6 million to clean up after smokers from City and County of San Francisco, page 2
- Paragraph 5, paraphrase: statistics on environmental impact from Ocean Conservancy, page 14
- Paragraph 5, paraphrase: over 4000 types of chemicals/pollutants from Novotny et al., no page
Step 11: Create a works cited or references page.
Create your works cited page.
Works Cited
Board of Supervisors. "Ordinance 173-09: Establishing a Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee." City and County of San Francisco, File #090724, 2009, pp. 1-16. https://sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances09/o0173-09.pdf
Klepeis, Neil, et al. "Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles." Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 57, 2007, pp. 522-34. TobaccoSmoke.ExposureScience.org.
Novotny, Thomas E., et al. "Tobacco and Cigarette Butt Consumption in Humans and Animals." Tobacco Control, vol. 20, 2011, pp. i17-i20, http://dx.doi/10.1136/tc.2011.043489.
"Outdoor Smoking Bans Double in U.S. Past 5 Years." CBSNews.com. CBS Interactive, 8 Aug. 2013, https://www.cbsnews.com/outdoor-smoking-bans-double-in-us-past-5-years/.
Turning the Tide on Trash: 2014 Report. Ocean Conservancy, 2014. https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2014-Ocean-Conservancy-ICC-Report.pdf.
United States Department of Health & Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/.
Step 12: Revise your essay.
Write the final draft of your essay using MLA or APA formatting.
Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to all MLA guidelines for final essays.
MLA citation style
Where There's Smoke, There's Ire
Summer is here at last, and people are happily stepping out to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine. But there's a cloud on the horizon. And another one in front of that doorway. And over there, hovering around that outdoor café. Clouds everywhere – clouds of cigarette smoke. Take a deep breath, and it's not flowers you smell. Run barefoot through the park, but it isn't just grass you're stepping on. It's cigarettes, and butts, and it's time to put a stop to it. It's time to ban cigarette smoking in all outdoor public spaces.
To some, banning cigarette smoking in outdoor spaces feels like an assault on both common sense and the American way. Most of us believe that people have the right to do what they want, even if it's foolish or dangerous, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Since smoke floats away so quickly in the open air, it's merely an annoyance in the great outdoors. We don't have laws against being annoying in public (if we did, no one would be able to wear socks with sandals in my town). Another worry is that outdoor smoking bans send us down that slippery slope of unwarranted government interference in what we do with our bodies. What will be next, laws against eating ice cream cones in public, or requiring everyone to wear sunscreen? At first glance, these arguments against smoking bans may seem to have merit. But recent studies show that smoking does cause health problems for non-smokers. Plus, as far as the famous slippery slope goes, the U.S. already has many laws regulating public behavior, and a ban on cigarettes would just be one more.
Anti-smoking laws are in place for good reason: the government has a compelling interest in reducing smoking. The habit drives up health care costs and is a financial and emotional burden on society. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1,300 Americans die from smoking related diseases every day, and, every year, the country spends $133 billion on medical care for smokers—costs that are passed along to everyone who pays taxes or buys health insurance (679). If outdoor bans make smoking less socially acceptable and more of a hassle, they may help discourage the unhealthy practice. It's true that we need to protect our rights with fierceness, but there is no natural or legal right to engage in activities that cause harm to other people or to public resources. And smoking is definitely harmful.
Evidence is mounting that outdoor smoking poses health risks to non-smokers, through exposure to secondhand smoke and contact with hot ash and burning cigarettes. Secondhand smoke, even in outdoor spaces, exposes non-smokers to dangerous chemicals. Studies show that even outdoors, smoke plumes have enough concentrated particulate matter to endanger the health of people nearby, especially those with existing medical issues (Klepeis et al.). Although smoke can dissipate quickly outside, smokers often congregate in small areas, such as in outdoor workplaces, near doorways, and at bus stops, beaches, parks, and concerts. This can produce a lot of smoke in a small area. Outdoor smoke is so irritating that many thousands of cities and private businesses have already restricted or banned smoking in crowded outdoor areas ("Outdoor Smoking Bans"). Besides the dangers of inhaling smoke, nearby non-smokers are at risk of cigarette burns or getting ash in their eyes or on their clothing in crowded conditions, such as on busy sidewalks.
A final and indisputable reason to ban smoking in public spaces is that discarded cigarette butts ruin outdoor experiences and pollute the environment. It only takes a brief walk outside to see that areas frequented by smokers quickly become littered with cigarette butts, which look and smell bad, leave stains, and are an expensive mess to clean up. Taxpayers have to foot large bills to clean up cigarette butts and other tobacco-related litter. The city of San Francisco alone reports that it spends over six million dollars a year cleaning up after outdoor smokers (Board of Supervisors 2). The cost to the environment is even higher. In 2014, as in every previous year studied, the Ocean Conservancy identified cigarette butts as the number one most littered item; in just one day, volunteers picked up more than two million butts on beaches worldwide (Turning the Tide 14). Less obvious but even more troubling, cigarettes cause soil and water pollution and threaten wildlife. Animals frequently swallow butts, and are sickened or killed by indigestible fibers and dangerous levels of nicotine and other chemicals. Discarded cigarettes are a long-lasting source of toxic materials that leach out into soils and waterways. A 2011 study published in the journal Tobacco Control reports that cigarettes contain four thousand chemicals, including heavy metals, carcinogens, pesticides, and herbicides, and can act as long-lasting point sources of pollution (Novotny et al. i17)
We Americans pride ourselves on having a tolerant and free society. But we've also long acknowledged that there are limits to freedom, as in the old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." When it comes to smoking in outdoor public spaces, it isn't just noses at risk. Smoking is a health risk for bystanders, a major source of toxic debris, and a drain on public resources. Less than twenty percent of Americans smoke, but the bad habit of those few that do interferes with the rights of everyone else to be safe and happy outdoors. Despite great initial resistance, indoor smoking bans are now widespread and popular. It's time to take them outside, and ban smoking there, too.
Works Cited
Board of Supervisors. "Ordinance 173-09: Establishing a Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee." City and County of San Francisco, File #090724, (2009), pp. 1-16. https://sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinance09/o0173-09.pdf.
Klepeis, Neil, et al. "Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles." Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 57, 2007, pp. 522-34. TobaccoSmoke.ExposureScience.org.
Novotny, Thomas E., et al. "Tobacco and Cigarette Butt Consumption in Humans and Animals." Tobacco Control, vol. 20, 2011, pp. i17-i20, https://tobaccocontrol.-bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i17.
"Outdoor Smoking Bans Double in U.S. Past 5 Years." CBSNews.com. CBS Interactive, 8 Aug. 2013, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outdoor-smoking-bans-double-in-us-past-5-years/.
Turning the Tide on Trash: 2014 Report. Ocean Conservancy, 2014, https://ocean-conservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2014-Ocean-Conservancy-ICC-Report.pdf.
United States Department of Health & Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.-gov/pubmed/24455788.
Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to all APA guidelines for final essays.
APA citation style
Where There's Smoke, There's Ire
Summer is here at last, and people are happily stepping out to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine. But there's a cloud on the horizon. And another one in front of that doorway. And over there, hovering around that outdoor café. Clouds everywhere – clouds of cigarette smoke. Take a deep breath, and it's not flowers you smell. Run barefoot through the park, but it isn't just grass you're stepping on. It's cigarettes, and butts, and it's time to put a stop to it. It's time to ban cigarette smoking in all outdoor public spaces.
To some, banning cigarette smoking in outdoor spaces feels like an assault on both common sense and the American way. Most of us believe that people have the right to do what they want, even if it's foolish or dangerous, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Since smoke floats away so quickly in the open air, it's merely an annoyance in the great outdoors. We don't have laws against being annoying in public (if we did, no one would be able to wear socks with sandals in my town). Another worry is that outdoor smoking bans send us down that slippery slope of unwarranted government interference in what we do with our bodies. What will be next, laws against eating ice cream cones in public, or requiring everyone to wear sunscreen? At first glance, these arguments against smoking bans may seem to have merit. But recent studies show that smoking does cause health problems for non-smokers. Plus, as far as the famous slippery slope goes, the U.S. already has many laws regulating public behavior, and a ban on cigarettes would just be one more.
Anti-smoking laws are in place for good reason: the government has a compelling interest in reducing smoking. The habit drives up health care costs and is a financial and emotional burden on society. According to the Surgeon General (2014), 1,300 Americans die from smoking related diseases every day, and, every year, the country spends $133 billion on medical care for smokers—costs that are passed along to everyone who pays taxes or buys health insurance (p. 679). If outdoor bans make smoking less socially acceptable and more of a hassle, they may help discourage the unhealthy practice. It's true that we need to protect our rights with fierceness, but there is no natural or legal right to engage in activities that cause harm to other people or to public resources. And smoking is definitely harmful.
Evidence is mounting that outdoor smoking poses health risks to non-smokers, through exposure to secondhand smoke and contact with hot ash and burning cigarettes. Secondhand smoke, even in outdoor spaces, exposes non-smokers to dangerous chemicals. Studies show that even outdoors, smoke plumes have enough concentrated particulate matter to endanger the health of people nearby, especially those with existing medical issues (Klepeis et al., 2007). Although smoke can dissipate quickly outside, smokers often congregate in small areas, such as in outdoor workplaces, near doorways, and at bus stops, beaches, parks, and concerts. This can produce a lot of smoke in a small area. Outdoor smoke is so irritating that many thousands of cities and private businesses have already restricted or banned smoking in crowded outdoor areas ("Outdoor Smoking Bans," 2013). Besides the dangers of inhaling smoke, nearby non-smokers are at risk of cigarette burns or getting ash in their eyes or on their clothing in crowded conditions, such as on busy sidewalks.
A final and indisputable reason to ban smoking in public spaces is that discarded cigarette butts ruin outdoor experiences and pollute the environment. It only takes a brief walk outside to see that areas frequented by smokers quickly become littered with cigarette butts, which look and smell bad, leave stains, and are an expensive mess to clean up. Taxpayers have to foot large bills to clean up cigarette butts and other tobacco-related litter. The city of San Francisco alone reports that it spends over six million dollars a year cleaning up after outdoor smokers (Board of Supervisors, 2009, p. 2). The cost to the environment is even higher. In 2014, as in every previous year studied, the Ocean Conservancy identified cigarette butts as the number one most littered item; in just one day, volunteers picked up more than two million butts on beaches worldwide (Turning the Tide, 2014, p. 14). Less obvious but even more troubling, cigarettes cause soil and water pollution and threaten wildlife. Animals frequently swallow butts, and are sickened or killed by indigestible fibers and dangerous levels of nicotine and other chemicals. Discarded cigarettes are a long-lasting source of toxic materials that leach out into soils and waterways. A 2011 study published in the journal Tobacco Control reports that cigarettes contain four thousand chemicals, including heavy metals, carcinogens, pesticides, and herbicides, and can act as long-lasting point sources of pollution (Novotny et al., p. i17).
We Americans pride ourselves on having a tolerant and free society. But we've also long acknowledged that there are limits to freedom, as in the old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." When it comes to smoking in outdoor public spaces, it isn't just noses at risk. Smoking is a health risk for bystanders, a major source of toxic debris, and a drain on public resources. Less than twenty percent of Americans smoke, but the bad habit of those few that do interferes with the rights of everyone else to be safe and happy outdoors. Despite great initial resistance, indoor smoking bans are now widespread and popular. It's time to take them outside, and ban smoking there, too.
References
Board of Supervisors. (2009). Ordinance 173-09: Establishing a cigarette litter abatement fee. City and County of San Francisco, File #090724. https://sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances09/o0173-09.pdf
Klepeis, N., Ott, W., & Switzer, P. (2007). Real-time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 57, 522-534. http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/system/files/Klepeis_OTS_Preprint.pdf
Novotny, T. E., Hardin, S. N., Hovda, L. R., Novotny, D. J., McLean, M. K., & Khan, S. (2011). Tobacco and cigarette butt consumption in humans and animals. Tobacco Control 20, i17-i20. doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043489
Office of the Surgeon General. (2014). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: A report of the Surgeon General. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/
Outdoor smoking bans double in U.S. past 5 years. (2013, Aug. 8). CBSNews.org. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/outdoor-smoking-bans-double-in-us-past-5-years/
+ METACOGNITIVE QUESTIONWhen might you need to write a persuasion essay?
There are many college courses where I might need to write a persuasion essay from history and literature to psychology. This is also a useful skill in writing a cover letter for a job or a scholarship essay.
This lesson follows the 7th edition of the APA Publication Manual, published in 2019, and the 9th Edition of the MLA Handbook, published in 2021. Check the APA Publication Manual and the MLA Handbook for updates to the standards.
Copyright ©2025 The NROC Project