If we reconstruct Nick Naylor’s argumentation in textual form, it would be something like this:
Back to Claim 1:
This argumentation has 3 main flaws.
First, the one which most of you might have noticed, it attacks a standpoint which hasn’t been put forward. Joan, the host, implicitly expressed the opinion that “Cigarettes are bad, especially for teenagers”. The argumentation advanced in favour of this expressed opinion is embedded in the description of “poor Robin”, to whom cigarettes gave a tough kind of cancer, ruining his future. So, Cigarettes are bad, especially for teenagers.
However, if we try to fully externalize by taking the whole context into consideration – given the presentation, the reaction of the public, etc. – the actual issue is not that cigarettes cause cancer and ruin the life of teenagers (nobody seems to have casted doubt upon the effect of cigarettes), but that Nick Naylor and the tobacco company he is fronting are responsible for Robin’s situation. So the actual dispute is around the claim:
Tobacco companies and their cigarettes do that to people like Robin
(and for this, they should be held responsible)
Now, what Nick argues against, it’s definitely not this claim. Rather, he tries to establish that Tobacco Companies do not want people like Robin to die. Not that their product (cigarettes) doesn’t do that, not that their product didn’t do that to Robin, but that they do not want this and that. Therefore, the arguments Nick Naylor advances (the ones left unexpressed are in italic in the table) relate to this attack:
Cigarettes producers do not want smokers to die
Consequently, what Nick did is he distorted the other party’s standpoint, by confronting a more easily dismissible one. To show that this is the case, let us imagine Joan replying to Nick’s argumentation in this way: “I agree with what you say, but I didn’t said that you want to kill teenagers like Robin, but that the companies you are fronting ruined his health. and possibly his future – regardless of their will or wish”
Secondly, there’s the plain incompatibility between “We are about to launch a 50 mil. campaign aimed at persuading teenagers not to smoke” and “It is in the best interest of tobacco companies to keep people alive and smoking”. This is rather obvious, I’ll not go into details.
Thirdly, you might have also notice the hardly subtle ad populum (appeal to the audience by labelling it with extreme reverence) of “let me share something with this fine and concerned bla bla bla”, and the – again hardly subtle – dialectical shift of “and you, sir, you should be ashamed of yourself”. A dialectical shift is defined as a “changeover from one type of dialogue to another” (Walton, 2006: 293); it seems like, suddenly, Nick Naylor gave up his purpose of resolving the difference of opinion, and moved on to another type of discussion (a quarrel) with the accusation: You, sir, ought to be ashamed of yourself.
This is just my sketchy analysis. If you have some other ideas, feel free to comment. I will change this article if you are right.