with the message of this piece. Since I have very little connection to any of these interests I remain neutral, looking for hard facts to base my own opinion on.The argument’s lack of statistical support is a major weakness. The writer provided no evidence of instances where spending money on a certain anti-smoking campaign produced worthwhile results. The success of increased anti-smoking spending is assumed. No mention of past attempts at this leads me to wonder, is the writer not mentioning past programs where money that was spent on fighting off tobacco produced little success? If the writer had included some statistics, along with his opinion and show of good will, the piece would be more convincing. The writer based the validity of the opinions argument only on assumptions. The whole writing lacked hard statistical evidence of any sort for the argument. My analysis concludes that I do not see how spending the tobacco settlement money on tobacco problems makes sense. ...
