Bel313

1. Whether Malaysia should banned smoking in public^[a].
2. The author is against smoking should be banned.^[b]
3. Yes. The author is biased against banned^[c] smoking in public.  One indication is that “in my view, has nothing to do with public health, burdened, I respect the freedom of smokers”.
4. The author assumptions^[d] that readers can accepts ^[e]that the smokers can smoke anywhere and because of The Health Ministry announced smoking will soon be banned doesn’t mean that it will make the eateries lose their customers and revenues. ^[f]
5. The author uses Adolf Hitler rule that in Germany launched the first and most broadly reaching anti-smoking campaign of modern time. Smoking was discouraged in the workplace and banned in cinemas and schools. He also uses personal observations and personal opinions, but no research findings or expert testimony.
6. Yes. The support seem directly related to argument as the author draws attentions to the effect of their business and income if the smoking be banned in public or everywhere.^[g]
7. The support is subjective because the information comes from the author feeling ^[h]and is thus influenced by author’s judgement. “Now what if one of my guests does not like to hang out with people who are smoking? Of course I am not going to tell everyone in my house to stop smoking and drinking. My house, my property and my rules. It means if you are in my house, you cannot smoke unless I say you can smoke. If I am in your house, I smoke or not depending on what your rule is”.
8. The argument is complete because the author consider opposing view and offers a counterargument against them^[i]. However, there is an incomplete argument because there is a several counterpoints that could weaken the argument have not been include in the article. There should have an evidence from the society or the Ministry and others.
9. The argument is valid because the evidence of Adolf Hitler and The Health Ministry can be check. http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/survey/gats/malaysia_country_report_2011.pdf.  The argument lacks validity because the support has no or little relevance since it^[j] is from the author perception and emotional.   “The smoking ban, in my view, has nothing to do with public health. I believe this is about controlling someone’s ownership behaviour managing property”.
10. The argument is not credible because the sources is speaking outside his area of expertise.  It does not consider others view. ^[k]But The support also is not unreliable.^[l]

...