Anti-smoking ad: Portrait of our culture?

The ad's main objective is to encourage parents to speak to their kids about not smoking. In doing so, the ad could also be allowing kids to become aware of the damage that they do to their parents and any other adults who they may love. Another possible secondary objective of the ad could be to make companies aware of the damage they cause to families and thus place them under even more social pressure than they already have from all the media. The calm image that covers most of the ad avoids a visual overload of information that could make the ad unattractive to the eyes and the emphasis on the words "Help me" and "kids" triggers a caring response in the people reading the ad, and accompanied by the also emphasized word "cigarettes" the ad gives the viewer a quick overview of what the problem is and hooks the audience so that they close in and read the more specific information at the bottom. Since the ad is in English and it shows an image of a father and a child fishing together (a stereotypical father-child activity in western culture) the ad is most likely to be from a western English-speaking country.

The ad makes emphasis on the value of the family, by using an image that can easily be associated with a family activity and by constantly saying "your kids" at the bottom, triggering the thought of one's own children. The ad takes a rather unusual approach to the problem of smoking: instead of talking about all the negative effects of smoking, it assumes that one already knows them (thus revealing that the ad is most likely from a developed society, where media has usually already widespread what the problem with smoking is). The fact that the ad targets the value of the family suggests that in the place where this ad was placed people hold that in a high regard, people care about their families. If this was not the case then the advertisers would not have chosen to emphasize in this value. The ad not only makes reference to the family, but also attempts to make family bonds stronger, since speaking to one's children about not smoking and thus impacting their lives is a good way to strengthen them. The image and the whole "atmosphere" of the ad is very calm and serene, which means that the people targeted by the ad are likely to be the kind that value these characteristics. For this reason, children and teenagers are an unlikely primary audience of the ad since at that age it is not as common to value calm and serenity in such high regard. Also regarding the values highlighted in the ad, as I mentioned before the ad is part of the entire anti-smoking movement, which shows that the people of that place are publicly against smoking.

The ad not only empowers parents who wish to speak to their children about not smoking, but pretty much empowers any adult that might feel motivated to do this. The ad places the children and the entire family as a whole in a very high regard. Smoking companies would be the ones being marginalized in this situation, since they are the root of the problem that is being addressed. As a matter of fact, the entire group of people who smoke are being marginalized in this ad since the ad is encouraging families to stay away from that "vibe." This just shows how much that society is against smoking and how they reject people that are related to it.

Cellphones in School, the True Way to Educate.

The following is a persuasive piece meant to be used as an exercise for learning the elements of rhetoric

What's the most useful, accessible and compact useful piece of technology there is? No matter who you are, you should have easily been able to answer that question (at least as long as you've read the title), and if you've been to a school in the last, say, 10 years, then you probably know that they are forbidden during class hours for student use. This ban was set up in order to prevent students from getting distracted and in order to preserve the order of the class, since the loud ringtones of cellphones could quite easily cause a lot of laughter inside a classroom and thus deviate the class's attention from their studies. However, this kind of policy is by far outdated. This ban comes from a time where cellphones were simply used as a means of communication between other phones. At that point, cellphones were nothing more than a nuisance for the teacher. Nowadays, however, the story's quite different. 

Cellphones have evolved to the point that they are almost quite literally a computer in your pocket. Most schools already allow the use of computers and laptops in class, so why not allow phones? It IS a much easier  solution to the educational needs of your classroom. There is an endless myriad of educational apps available for free download and in fact, statistics say that 73% of teachers have already begun to use the cellphone as a means of education. And if you're still thinking that this will be too distracting for students then remember that studies show that, on average, 99% of students will be off-task while using their computers. If you're going to allow laptops, then its kind of a hypocrisy to just ban the cellphone. Obviously there need to be limits, but just as how it happens when students chatter in class, a teacher should always be aware and take the necessary measures to, simply, "shush" those who disturb the class with their cellphones.

Cellphones can also contribute to overall education in more indirect manners. Let me start with a story (note that the story has been distorted in order to protect the people who are actually in it, who btw are part of my family). Yula was a young 15-year old teenager with hunger for the pleasures of life but an extremely strict father. Following a tragic accident, Yula's father perished. Even though he was mourned, two months later Yula got pregnant and had to deal with the heavy burden of caring for a baby and such a young age. The story just goes to show that the more you keep something away from people the more they will want it. The grass is always greener on the other side, right? Eventually, school students will get to college and then go off to work. If students are deprived of the use of the cellphone then they will crave for it even more when they leave school. It's better to learn about the problems that misusing a phone in class first hand while you're still in school and your parents can support you, rather than having to learn those the bad way when you're struggling to understand how the heck to be independent. Let's admit it, life is full of painful lessons anyway, but getting those during the time where you still live with your family is probably better for you anyways. 

Asides from the education, allowing cellphones would contribute to making schools a happy place, since students would be more content with less (useless) restrictions. These are only a few of the reasons why the ban on cell phones must be removed from schools that still have it. Interested in more reasons? Feel like joining our campaign to free cellphones? Got any say about this? Then we invite you to come and show us your thoughts at our website. Let's make schools a happier, more enjoyable place for the students!