GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: Write a well-developed, coherent essay on the topic given below. Use MLA or APA format. Your essay should be of sufficient length to discuss the topic thoroughly. Include a thesis statement, give specific details in logically related

FINALEXAMARTICLEFALL2019

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: Write a well-developed, coherent essay on the topic given below. Use MLA or APA format. Your essay should be of sufficient length to discuss the topic thoroughly. Include a thesis statement, give specific details in logically related sentences, and show proper relationships between your ideas. When you are finished, re-read your essay to ensure that your sentences are clear and understandable. Proofread for errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Use a dictionary. TOPIC: CRITICAL READING AND ANALYSIS PART I: Carefully read the ″Final Exam Article,″ found under the FINAL EXAM ARTICLE file in FILES. PART II: In at least five well-developed paragraphs, evaluate the effectiveness of the argument presented in the attached essay. Include 1) a definition of the author’s argument; 2) a summary of the author’s major points and evidence; 3) a critique of the passage’s tone and style; 4) a statement of your own position on the issue; and 5) a conclusion on the effectiveness of the article. AACU (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES) CRITERIA FOR PASSING: The curriculum of English 102 centers on critical reading and written analysis of texts; therefore, students must be able to coherently summarize and evaluate any given article. Students must meet or exceed the following standards for college-level writing in both form and content, scoring a mean score of 2 or higher on the AACU Written Communication Value Rubric, which focuses on the following criteria: Content and Purpose for Writing: The writer demonstrates awareness of context, audience, purpose, and the assigned tasks(s) (e.g., begins to show awareness of audience′s perceptions and assumptions). Content Development: The writer uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work. Genre and Disciplinary Conventions: The writer follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) for basic organization, content, and presentation. Sources and Evidence: The writer demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing. Control of Syntax and Mechanics: The writer uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing may include some errors. ORIGINAL CRITERIA FOR PASSING THE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY EXAM: The curriculum of English 102 centers on critical reading and written analysis of texts; therefore, students must be able to coherently summarize and evaluate any given article. Students must meet or exceed the following standards for college-level writing in both form and content: The essay has a clearly stated thesis that adheres to the objectives of the assignment and provides for a unified and coherent essay structure. The thesis statement is sufficiently supported by specific examples and details drawn directly from the article. The essay is logically organized with effective transition between ideas and clearly stated topic sentences for each individual paragraph. The essay demonstrates a clear understanding of the article and the major issues and opinions expressed in it. The student also exhibits an ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the article, to form and communicate opinions on the issues discussed, and to quote and paraphrase the article correctly. The essay is largely free of grammatical, usage, spelling, and punctuation errors: no more than 5 major grammatical errors (subject/verb agreement, comma splices, sentence fragments, run-on (fused) sentence, principle parts of the verb) and no more than 10 minor errors (spelling of common words, case, punctuation, pronoun agreement, usage, verb tenses). Please read the article I attachment

The New York Times

Opinion

Banning E-Cigarettes Could Do More

Harm Than Good

Only a strong public health system can conquer nicotine addiction.

By The Editorial Board
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by
expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the
newsroom.

 Nov. 12, 2019


 By Nicholas Konrad

The nation is facing two distinct vaping-related health crises: surging e-cigarette use
among teenagers and a lung-injury outbreak that has sickened more than 2,000 people
and killed at least 40. Both have exposed yawning gaps in the nation’s public health
apparatus. But instead of closing those gaps, policymakers have turned to a much more
straightforward fix: banning products.

A federal ban on flavored e-cigarettes is reportedly in the offing. Several states have
already enacted their own flavor bans. And Massachusetts and several California cities
have taken steps to outlaw e-cigarettes altogether.

The impulse to remove e-cigarettes from the market is understandable. The Food and
Drug Administration’s hands-off approach to vaping and e-cigarette regulation has
backfired badly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and state and local
health departments around the country — are struggling to pick up the slack. And after
more than a decade, neither federal agency has a clear sense of the overall risks and
benefits of these products.

But prohibition is not a good long-term solution, for a number of reasons. Such
measures are not guaranteed to prevent teenagers from getting e-cigarettes. And they
would almost certainly force people who already use these products, including
roughly 11 million adults, to choose between traditional cigarettes (which remain widely
available, despite being deadlier than e-cigarettes) and black-market vaping products.
.

Because these black market products are a leading suspect in the lung-injury outbreak,
product bans are more likely to exacerbate this crisis than to mitigate it.

https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/health/vaping-teens-e-cigarettes.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/health/vaping-illness-tracker.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/health/trump-vaping.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/health/vaping-e-cigarettes-fda.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/opinion/vape-health.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/health/vaping-cigarettes-nicotine.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/health/vaping-illness-cdc.html?module=inline

The better, if more complicated, option would be to build a public health system that’s
strong enough to combat all nicotine addiction in the long term. That, in turn, could
help drive a cultural shift for e-cigarettes akin to the shift that took place for traditional
cigarettes. Policy changes and growing public awareness — not product bans — helped
turn what was considered a chic, stress-relieving diet tool into what is now more
commonly viewed as a smelly, overpriced cancer stick.

With sustained and careful investment, e-cigarettes might become nothing more than a
harm-reduction option for adult smokers — no more appealing to teenagers than a
nicotine patch or a piece of nicotine gum. Here are some ideas for making that vision a
reality.

Treat e-cigarettes like cigarettes. Traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products are
already bound by a number of rules — including special taxes, advertising restrictions
and age-verification requirements — that helped sharply lower
both youth and adult smoking rates in recent decades. E-cigarette makers have evaded
similar regulations, through a combination of lawsuits and intensive lobbying. (Among
other things, the vaping industry has argued that e-cigarettes are not tobacco products
because they contain only nicotine — but nicotine comes exclusively from the tobacco
plant.) Congress could stop such antics with new legislation. A recently passed House
bill that would mandate age verification for all online e-cigarette purchases is a welcome
step in the right direction. Additional laws are needed to ensure that any rules applying
to tobacco products also apply to e-cigarettes.

Learn from Britain. So far, the country has managed to make e-cigarettes available for
adults who want to quit using regular cigarettes without triggering an epidemic of
nicotine dependence among its youth. Public health experts say at least part of that
success is due to the way these products are regulated in Britain. Packaging and
advertising are tightly restricted — no bright, colorful labels or kid-friendly media
campaigns allowed. And the nicotine content is capped. In America, where there are no
such limits, e-cigarettes often contain more than twice as much nicotine as they do in
Britain and are still being sold in ways designed to appeal to young children.

Invest in public health. The C.D.C. and state and local health departments across the
country are struggling to hold the line on public health gains made over the past
century. For tobacco control, that means educating the public about the risks of nicotine
addiction and countering the tobacco industry’s efforts to lure young users. It also
means detecting outbreaks of vaping-related illness or injury, pinpointing the causes of
those outbreaks and advising governments on how to respond. This crucial work is in
desperate need of a funding boost. The House has approved $40 million to increase the
C.D.C.’s tobacco control efforts and $100 million to upgrade the agency’s data system,
which is currently so antiquated it relies on fax machines and CD-ROMs. The Senate
should follow suit.

Invest in research. There remains much we don’t know about e-cigarettes. Are these
products truly effective at helping people quit smoking, and is there a way to maximize

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/substance-use/drugs/tobacco/trends/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p1108-cigarette-smoking-adults.html

https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-armstrong-e-cigarette-bill-passes-house-representatives

https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/fdas-comprehensive-plan-tobacco-and-nicotine-regulation

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/world/europe/uk-hospitals-vaping-shops.html?module=inline

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-cigarettes-regulations-for-consumer-products

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/health/juul-ecigarettes-nicotine.html?module=inline

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP07/20191016/110071/HHRG-116-AP07-Wstate-SchuchatA-20191016

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP07/20191016/110071/HHRG-116-AP07-Wstate-Coleman-MitchellR-20191016

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/statements/chairwoman-delauro-statement-at-hearing-on-emerging-public-health-threat-of-e

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/opinion/vape-health.html?module=inline

that effectiveness? For example, do flavors that attract children also help adults quit?
Would adults be more likely to quit if e-cigarettes were paired with other supports, like
counseling? How safe is long-term e-cigarette use, and are some products safer than
others? What are the risks to people who end up using both electronic and traditional
cigarettes? What about those who switch completely to e-cigarettes but end up smoking
much more because vaping is easier to get away with indoors? Health officials need
answers to these questions to set effective policies.

Maintain pressure. Scientists and universities have refused to take “research” money
from companies that make e-cigarettes; advertising agencies and health and wellness
companies are pledging to do the same. These movements reflect a growing public
wariness that is itself a powerful check on the industry. For example, it was after a
tsunami of bad press — investigations, congressional hearings, lawsuits — that Juul, the
nation’s leading e-cigarette maker, closed some of its social media accounts, put in place
an age-verification system and stopped selling many of its flavored pods.

Critics are right to be skeptical of such voluntary measures — the tobacco industry has a
terrible track record of self-policing. But the fact that the company took these steps at
all, after fighting them so aggressively for so long, is proof that even while regulatory
efforts falter, public sentiment can still hold sway.
Related

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order