Essay on Evaluating Argument: Soundness and Logic
Number of words: 1152
The central claims presented by the articles are the importance and significance of health to all individuals. The article submits that health is vital to all individuals and should be dwelt within the utmost better way. The author stresses the importance of everyone getting vaccinated, and vaccines are commended for toddlers, children, youths, and adults. Vaccinations are essential for public health since they thwart the outbreak of contagious, precarious, and lethal ailments such as measles. According to the articles, vaccines top the list of inefficiency and redeeming scores of lives. The achievement accounts of suppression of smallpox and the eradication of poliomyelitis mirror on vaccination strategies. They have vastly subsidized the degeneration in mortality and indisposition of several contagious ailments. Triumph in vaccination strategies is reliant on an excellent vaccination coverage percentage.
The authors have based their claims on the exigency of the problem, which is vaccination, with the help of rhetoric analysis of the problem. The claims and assertions by the authors bear a logic of total confidence, demonstrating that they are grounded on satisfactory and substantial evidence. The authors have proved that the vaccination problem may be underlying, and there is no warranty that it will be resolved once and for all. However, the authors in their submissions have revealed that vaccination is the shaping principle for circumstances; it identifies the audience and the preferred transformation. The authors uphold that the absence of conviction in vaccines stipulates a rhetorical problem. For instance, in administering COVID-19 injections, public health experts come across an absence of belief in the vaccines. The absence of trust necessitates a rhetorical answer as to what reasons the vaccine should be trusted. In their submissions, the authors have established that administering a vaccine requires to be supplemented by some dialogue. The public health experts are required to seek ways of addressing the absence of trust embraced by some individuals, even though it could be claimed that the absence of belief—the exigence—is not wholly dwelt with through rhetoric. The authors have upheld that rhetorical circumstance can be helpfully stretched to emphasize an exigence that is possibly and somewhat changed through rhetoric. The authors argue that it is precisely the situation for those that are not essentially passionate vaccine cynics or conspiracy disciples, nonetheless have optional opinions about, for example, the probable side effects of a freshly initiated vaccine.
The authors have established a range between complete recognition and absolute rejection of some vaccines and dare the prior understanding of individuals, terming them as either anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine. The actions accountable for vaccine hesitancy can be linked to trust, suitability and complacency. Vaccine hesitancy is an intricate and dynamic matter; imminent vaccination strategies require reflecting and dealing with these context-precise issues in both their strategy and appraisal. Several specialists believe that it is good to deal with vaccine reluctance at the population depth. The authors have established that it can be implemented by initiating more transparency into strategy resolution-making before vaccination programs, offering relevant data to the public and health caregivers about the laborious measures carried out before introducing new vaccines, and through varied post-marketing scrutiny of vaccine-allied events. The authors have sufficiently reflected the rhetorical state at hand. The authors have not misrepresented rhetorical appeals. Robert F. Kennedy has employed logos, ethos, and pathos in his article by questioning the sincerity of the vaccines industry. In his speech, he questions the authenticity of the pharmaceutical industry. He argues that several deaths have been attributed to the pharmaceutical industries because of their greed. Through his employment of rhetoric, the author justifies his claims to be logical. Similarly, they have presented their claims backed with satisfactory evidence.
The authors have employed several pieces of evidence to logically back their claims. These consist of the following:
- Employment of recognized facts. For example, the evidence that WHO has registered vaccine hesitancy as one of the highest threats to worldwide health in 2019. Another example is the evidence that vaccinations avert some 2 million to 3 million deaths annually and have the probability of protecting another 1.5 million lives annually with more comprehensive vaccine coverage, according to the WHO.
- Employment of case studies scenarios. For example, In Maine, health administrators in March informed about forty-one new cases of whooping cough, an ailment once believed to be a remnant of the past.
- Using statistics to back their data. For example, statistics about more than 110,000 individuals succumbing to measles annually.
- Using analogies and logical reasoning
The authors have also employed authority efficiently to back their assertions. This has been achieved through the use of various techniques, which include the following:
- Use of personal stories. For instance, the vaccine business when the author was a boy was 270 million dollars.
- Demonstration of profound acquaintance on the matter. For example, the author demonstrates knowledge when deliberating about the encounters of public health administrators that several individuals are more scared of the vaccines than the ailments since they have been fortunate enough to have never experienced the diseases and their overwhelming impression.
- Reference of acknowledged specialists on the matter. For example, the mention of Robert F. Kennedy, who supported community enabling models to deliberate vital social essentials such as improved health care, resulting in the improvement of community health centers.
- Testimony of individuals experiencing the matter
The articles contain several relevant arguments that the authors have initiated. Similarly, the authors have substantiated their claims by using several pieces of evidence. The authors have provided underlying assumptions in their arguments to back their claims. For example, the author argues that we do not need measles epidemics to remind them of the significance of vaccination. The author further submits that parents may have queries about vaccines and health care measures regarding their children. The article further states that there is a need to hold discussions that address distrust about the safety and effectiveness of injections without demonizing skeptics. The reality is that vaccines can have side effects. Nevertheless, the Public health welfares of vaccines to every individual overshadow any probable side effects. The author maintains that if they ensue, they could be overwhelmingly slight, hardly grave, and more than vindicated by the total benefit to vulnerable populations.
However, the authors have not provided their counterarguments effectively. The authors have thoroughly enlightened their arguments, but they have failed to offer their counterarguments. They have not deliberated both sides of the vaccination exigency before concluding. They have all submitted their arguments in favor of their claim. The authors have drawn broader deductions that are indicated by the range of their underlying evidence.
Kennedy Jr, Robert F. “We must take America back.” J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 22 (2007): 201.
Vyse, Stuart. “From False Cause to False Cure: Autism and the Rich and Famous.”