On the campus of Rochester of Institute of Technology there are the designated smoking areas. These designated smoking benches are a visual argument against the smoking of tobacco products. These smoking areas are located far from campus buildings, and unaccommodating.
This physical distance is evidence of RIT making a visual argument against the practice of smoking. The premises of RIT’s visual argument are “RIT’s smoking areas are located far away from buildings.”. If w Articulation of the visual warrant is best described in a sign statement, “Locating items far away is a sign of an nonacceptance”.
Further, evidence of the anti-smoking visual argument is the unaccommodating nature of the smoking bench. The bench is very visually unaccommodating. In the design there is no protection from the wind, or the rain. This visual characteristic pertains to the warrant “Unwanted items are often not taken care of”. The premise found in the visual argument is “RIT does not take care of its smokers”.
Using the two premises found in this visual argument one can infer that these smoker’s benches are a visual argument that the “RIT community does not condone the practice of smoking tobacco products.” I find this visual argument very intriguing, because it is a very subdued yet pervasive method to reject the habit of smoking. This visual argument is very intriguing because it uses real people a subject in the visual argument. Upon looking at a smoker at one of these benches, one notices that they outcast from society. Therefore, it discourages starting the habit of smoking and joining these outcasts.