Introduction The article selected for this review is Smoking bans protect both the public and the infants and children of smokers by Lipton et al. that was published in 2018. The work presents arguments for the benefits of smoking bans for the public and children of smokers. Its main points are that smoke-free laws can help people to quit smoking, reduce children’s exposure to smoke, and improve individuals’ and children’s health and poor birth outcomes. The analysis of this article is important because it is crucial to identify whether the authors’ claims are reliable and what factors affect their persuasiveness. Analysis Audience It is possible to say that the authors have written the article aimed at a non-specialist audience. They provide statistical data to support their claims, which can be significant for scholars studying the topic while not using overly complex words and sentence structures. Individuals of all genders, cultures, and nationalities can find the article useful. However, the authors address the data from the US primarily, which means that people not living in the country may not be interested in the information. The article may not be useful for children and young adolescents, as its language is not simplified; the topic the authors present is narrow. Purpose The purpose of the article is to show why smoking bans aim at protecting the public and the children of smokers. The work is persuasive because the authors do not present the benefits of alternative viewpoints and present several arguments for their claim. They address the benefits and potential outcomes of smoking bans and the effect of smoke on infant and child health. The article is informative because it presents graphs and statistical data, referring to other authors studying the issue. Ethos/Credibility It is possible to say that the article is credible. Its authors are professors from New York University, Bentley University, and San Diego State University; moreover, one of them works at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit organization focused on public health. One of the possible biases presented in the article is that the authors do not consider alternative opinions and the possible adverse effects of smoking bans on individuals. However, a multifaceted perspective on the topic balances the article, as authors review existing literature on the issue and do not concentrate on their viewpoint solely. Logos The authors’ work is significant, as it presents evidence from national and international studies on smoking bans. Lipton et al. address the percentage of the population affected by smoke-free laws, analyzing the data for more than two decades. The information is well-organized, and the paper is well-structured. The article presents high-quality research, as it combines the data from several studies conducted in different states. The presented work may be considered scholarly because it includes a reference list, provides a graph, and features precise information. Pathos From the perspective of pathos, the authors’ narrative can create a strong emotional response among the audience. They discuss the effects of smoking on children and infants, highlightin