Ethos: This story is published on newsweek, a respectable organization that publishes many current stories as well as other documents. The Author references a quote by Pope John Paul 2, to help illustrate the nature of who Christ is to many of the world's religions. It also quotes many theologians and professors, at least one for each group.
Pathos: The use of pathos in this article is difficult to determine, as this article simply seems to be a list of facts about some well known religions in the world. However, some of the uses of Pathos could be when the author references how each of these religions views the Person of Christ. All of the religions view him as a man of love, and a wise man. This article also appeals to the reader by giving them a better understanding of the world's major religions.
Logos: The Logos involved is the accounting of how Christ is viewed in the major religions, by comparing the beliefs of other groups. The author interviewed several theologians and professors for each religion and included them in the article.
Audience: I think that this article is definitely aimed at the average American public who, most likely, would not know many of these things about the major religions in the world. The author of this article most probably wanted to shed light on how the Character of Christ had an enormous impact on many of the religions in the world.
Bias: I do not believe the author really has a bias, other than trying to clarify, perhaps, how most of these other faiths view the figure of Christ. The author isn't trying to prove, or discredit any of the religions, but is simply showing some important facts about how Christ is involved in all of these faiths.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Rough Draft of Summary Strong Response, Conrad Keezer
Rough Draft of Summary Strong Response, Conrad Keezer
Mandatory screening; is it selective eugenics? Or is it “smart science?” (Appel par. 1)
In an article published on the website Opposing views, Mr. Jacob Appel asserts that
Mandatory genetic testing should at least be imposed on fetuses fertilized by in vitro
fertilization. He also gives several reasons why such screening could be effective. While
he makes some interesting points in his article, he doesn’t provide enough information
to effectively persuade the audience on a highly controversial issue.
Mr. Appel begins his argument with an acknowledgement of a study done by Physicians
at the University College in London that determined that they could successfully test
unborn infants for genetic problems that could lead to breast cancer. Mr. Appel then
raises the question that “If pre-implantation genetic diagnosis during in vitro fertilization
(IVF) can successfully prevent children from developing serious illnesses, why shouldn’t
such screening be required?” (Appel, par. 3) Mr. Appel then continues on in his article
with information stating that women who have the breast cancer gene (BRCA1) have an
80 percent chance of developing breast cancer in the future. While Mr. Appel admits that
treatment for breast cancer is successful now, at eighty-eight percent for a five-year
survival rate, he does not believe this should deter the potential benefits of genetic
screening. Further on in his article, Mr. Appel continues his argument based upon some
appeals to logos, making the point that genetic screening could save taxpayer dollars, and
also makes appeals to ethos stating that laws in the United States prevent parents from
refusing life-saving treatment for their children on the basis of religious beliefs.
Mr. Appel concludes his argument by admitting that certain genetic screening could be
perceived as an attempt to create a perfect human, reminiscent of Hitler’s master race, but
concludes that mandatory genetic testing should be imposed nonetheless.
In his article, Mr. Appel’s article consists mostly of appeals to logos via an ethical
argument. He argues that if we impose mandatory genetic testing, we can prevent an
individual from living a life of suffering from a genetic disease. He states “The most
obvious advantage of mandatory screening is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of
the children who are spared the disease.” Appel, par. 6) Mr. Appel compares this idea to
child welfare laws that prohibit exposure to environmental toxins that produce an eighty
percent risk of future cancer. Another point made is that American courts compel
pediatric cancer therapy, even when parents may object. Using this point, Mr. Appel
states that the government should have the right to override parents wishes on the issue of
genetic screening, on the basis of protecting the child. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Appel
refers to how U.S. law prohibits parents from refusing life-saving treatment for their
children on the basis of religious grounds. He states “… Western Societies have long
acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child.”
(Appel, par. 7) Later in his article, he also makes the case that mandatory genetic testing
can be used for good, as easily as it could be used for evil. However, he believes, and
argues that the benefits of using such testing, far outweigh the ethical implications of
such a decision. This belief is demonstrated in his final sentence where Mr. Appel states
that “Maybe the benefits are so clear-cut that opting out shouldn’t be an option.”
Other than an ethical argument, Mr. Appel makes, unfortunately, few other appeals to
logos. He mentions that the benefits of genetic testing could prevent the use of taxpayer’s
dollars that would be spent for treatment of individuals with these diseases. In addition to
saving public money on prevention for disease, Mr. Appel also asserts that it will save
money in the private sector as an increasing amount of insurers are having to cover the
costs of fertility therapy. He also states that “Women who carry the BRCA1 gene have an
eighty percent chance of developing breast cancer, and a forty percent chance of
developing ovarian cancer.” Using these facts, Mr. Appel believes that these statistics
support his position on genetic testing. While hard facts and statistical information in this
article may be somewhat effective for his argument, the use of logos is too few and far
between to sway an audience to agree with his position by logic alone. Now, in his use of
logos, Mr. Appel does reference findings from a University College in London, as well as
findings from British researchers. These studies lend credence to his position by
reinforcing the argument with hard facts. However, his argument with logic may have
been helped by referencing other studies by Universities from multiple regions to indicate
that a pattern, if any, exists.
In this article, Mr. Appel makes use of Pathos in a few sections. The first of
which, is the appeal to the heart of the audience, regarding the suffering lifestyle of an
individual who has a disease that could have been detected earlier during the pregnancy.
He references the story of a mother who had the screening technique used because “The
mother… opted for screening after the mutant gene had triggered malignancies in her
husband’s mother, sister, grandmother, and cousin.” (Appel, par. 4) Mr. Appel in this
scenario does use an effective appeal to the emotion of the reader, and helps make the
case for his argument. In the article, Mr. Appel frequently mentions the importance of
protecting children who may be afflicted with diseases that could have been detected
before birth. With these sections, Mr. Appel does appeal to the audience through emotion,
yet as with logos, the use of pathos is not used as strongly as his use of ethos and logos.
In conclusion, Mr. Appel's article uses a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. Unfortunately,
his use of logos was somewhat limited in that he didn't present much hard evidence in
favor of his position. As a reader, I was disappointed that he didn't reference other studies
that produced similar results. While his overall article could be an effective argument on
this issue, his lack of using other studies on the issue don’t serve to reinforce his
argument. Also, creating an argument in favor of mandatory testing, and the removal of
certain genomes, leaves the reader with many questions as to the potential consequences
of such an action. How would this procedure affect adults later in life? Have there been
other tests that show perhaps negative results to this? If Mr. Appel had discussed these,
and other issues, then his article could have been reinforced.
The ethical dilemma of mandatory genetic testing is presented in this article. Would an
unbiased audience side with Mr. Appel, and conclude that mandatory testing is worth
the costs, both financially and ethically? Or would the audience decide that mandatory
testing is ethically questionable, and shouldn't be enforced? It is a decision that America,
and the world will have to continually grapple with in the twenty-first century.
Citation of Sources
Appel. Jacob. “Mandatory Genetic Testing Isn’t Eugenics, It’s Smart Science.”
Opposing Views. Web. 25 January, 2010.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Declaration of independence
1. The writers of the declaration of independence make a list of several grievances committed against them by the King of Great Britain. They repeat several times, the list of these crimes committed against the colonists. This has the effect of reminding an audience of what they have gone through, and suffered at the hands of King George. This serves to create positive sentiment for their announced position further in the declaration.
2. The writer's use several personal pronouns, to apply these grievances to the daily life of the colonists. This serves to further remind them, and show that each individual who has suffered any of these grievances is not alone in doing so. This would create a sense of common unity among the colonists, and show that the framers of the declaration have a legitimate cause in accusing the King of these crimes.
3. This document is very persuasive in appealing to the unity, and love of freedom of the colonists. It presents a litany of complaints and accusations, several of which, are undoubtedly true, which unites public opinion for a common cause. It also would serve to bring in individuals who may have considered themselves "on the fence" about the acts of Great Britain toward the states. It first presents and appeals to their common principles in the rights of Humanity. It declares this list of rights as "unalienable" and states that they are granted to Humanity by its Creator. After presenting, and establishing these rights as universal, they then proceed to make a list of accusations stating that King George has violated these rights, and that any government that does so, should be overthrown by the people.
4. The declaration of independence does anticipate that their audience would be reticent to taking such an action. It makes such an overwhelming case for the beliefs of the basic freedoms of man that any reader studying this document would have to carefully consider the ramifications of living under such an oppressive system, as opposed to taking action to create a better future. It lays out a set of consequences that are combined with the list of complaints. It serves to remind the audience that unless action is taken, they will continue to have to live without representation, or the right to self-govern their own country, and that their situation could even worsen with time. By presenting these possible outcomes, and listing their consequences, it does show the reader that by not taking action, undesirable scenarios will unfold, and that only action will bring about freedom for the people.
2. The writer's use several personal pronouns, to apply these grievances to the daily life of the colonists. This serves to further remind them, and show that each individual who has suffered any of these grievances is not alone in doing so. This would create a sense of common unity among the colonists, and show that the framers of the declaration have a legitimate cause in accusing the King of these crimes.
3. This document is very persuasive in appealing to the unity, and love of freedom of the colonists. It presents a litany of complaints and accusations, several of which, are undoubtedly true, which unites public opinion for a common cause. It also would serve to bring in individuals who may have considered themselves "on the fence" about the acts of Great Britain toward the states. It first presents and appeals to their common principles in the rights of Humanity. It declares this list of rights as "unalienable" and states that they are granted to Humanity by its Creator. After presenting, and establishing these rights as universal, they then proceed to make a list of accusations stating that King George has violated these rights, and that any government that does so, should be overthrown by the people.
4. The declaration of independence does anticipate that their audience would be reticent to taking such an action. It makes such an overwhelming case for the beliefs of the basic freedoms of man that any reader studying this document would have to carefully consider the ramifications of living under such an oppressive system, as opposed to taking action to create a better future. It lays out a set of consequences that are combined with the list of complaints. It serves to remind the audience that unless action is taken, they will continue to have to live without representation, or the right to self-govern their own country, and that their situation could even worsen with time. By presenting these possible outcomes, and listing their consequences, it does show the reader that by not taking action, undesirable scenarios will unfold, and that only action will bring about freedom for the people.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thesis and topic sentences
Thesis statement : While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.
Opening sentences of paragraphs.
1. President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform.
2. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform."
3. Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence.
4. Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan.
5. So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate?
6. Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement.
Opening sentences of paragraphs.
1. President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform.
2. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform."
3. Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence.
4. Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan.
5. So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate?
6. Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement.
Journal 5
In this journal we went over various aspects of how different papers persuade audiences, and how we as writers can use our writing to influence an audience's perception of a subject. There are several ways to do this. An author can choose a controversial subject to write on, and make an argument for either side. Sometimes a writer will write an article with a specific audience in mind, and make a case for an issue. As audience members though, we should also realize that writer's themselves will usually have a bias on a subject, or may simply not know all the facts at hand. This is an angle of vision. When a reader analyzes an article by a writer, they need to realize that the writer is only human, and that they can never possibly know all of the facts to a subject, facts that might change how a subject can be perceived. When a reader looks at any kind of text, they should try to analyze the worldview that that text is conveying. Some types of writing material will try to make readers identify with certain worldviews, or to simply convey expressions or feelings. A reader should keep all of these possibilities in mind when reading a text.
Another aspect of study that we went over was the ability of writers to make proposals to society about current issues. Writers can make proposals to solutions of difficult issues from several approaches. They can argue an issue from principle, which is similar to appealing to the ethos of an issue. They can write as an argument about the consequences of certain actions, desirable or otherwise. They can also make arguments or proposals for solutions based upon solutions from similar historical problems. The challenge of proposal arguments, is that you can find yourself at times arguing against the grain of society on an issue. Societies are naturally resistant to change, and tackling any of these kind of issue will always be challenging. Even if it is an issue that is not necessarily controversial, writers trying to propose solutions to problems will have to come up with these solutions.
There are many different ways to create arguments, such as making posters, web pages, writing articles to newspapers, or other means. Individuals can also take opportunities to contact members of Congress or lawmaking authorities to propose solutions to problems. When you do send a letter, or write an article, you should give a good background of the issue. Describing the problem in detail will help readers understand why it should be a good idea to change an issue, or accept your solution to a problem. After this, you can then make a proposal for a solution, and show how it would work and why. After you make a proposal, then you need to justify why people should adopt this plan, and what benefits it would bring. These are several methods writers can use to give possible solutions to problems facing a society.
Another aspect of study that we went over was the ability of writers to make proposals to society about current issues. Writers can make proposals to solutions of difficult issues from several approaches. They can argue an issue from principle, which is similar to appealing to the ethos of an issue. They can write as an argument about the consequences of certain actions, desirable or otherwise. They can also make arguments or proposals for solutions based upon solutions from similar historical problems. The challenge of proposal arguments, is that you can find yourself at times arguing against the grain of society on an issue. Societies are naturally resistant to change, and tackling any of these kind of issue will always be challenging. Even if it is an issue that is not necessarily controversial, writers trying to propose solutions to problems will have to come up with these solutions.
There are many different ways to create arguments, such as making posters, web pages, writing articles to newspapers, or other means. Individuals can also take opportunities to contact members of Congress or lawmaking authorities to propose solutions to problems. When you do send a letter, or write an article, you should give a good background of the issue. Describing the problem in detail will help readers understand why it should be a good idea to change an issue, or accept your solution to a problem. After this, you can then make a proposal for a solution, and show how it would work and why. After you make a proposal, then you need to justify why people should adopt this plan, and what benefits it would bring. These are several methods writers can use to give possible solutions to problems facing a society.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Final Draft of Comparison of sources
Is health care reform truly needed? This is a question that is being tackled by many groups this very moment. Members of both sides of the debate are working tirelessly to defend their points of view. Among the several high-profile officials involved in this debate are; President Barack Obama, and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.The President of the United States, Barack Obama, wrote an op-ed article to the New York Times, titled "Why We Need Health Care Reform" on August 16th, 2009. The former Speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, also wrote an op-ed also in The Examiner, titled "We get last word on health care reform" on September 4, 2009. In their articles, they present vastly different views on the same topic, and make robust arguments for their cases. This paper will be an analysis of the arguments that both President Obama, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich make for their side. While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.
President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform. After this, he proceeds to recount his experiences of talking with individuals about health care. He mentions several instances where the current health insurance system has led to denial of claims, which have resulted in extremely high costs for the individuals, or even death in some cases. Most of his article makes a strong attempt to relate health care to average Americans. After having made his argument on denial of claims, President Obama switches gears and moves to a description of the type of health reform he wants to see in a bill. He proceeds to argue that we need cuts in "waste and inefficiency" ( Obama par. 6) and that we also need to rein in subsidies to insurance companies. The article continues with an argument supporting an end to the practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. President Obama also spends a large part of the article defending the measures of the bill, and arguing that the health care plan will not adversely affect Americans' choice of their doctor, or care provider. In closing, President Obama concludes that Americans will come together, and support the health care reform.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform." He begins his argument by criticizing President Obama for attempting to control the health care debate, and compares him to two other Presidents who he claims, had great orating skills like President Obama, but recognized that they can't control debate. He then brings up, and criticizes President Obama's "America's Recovery and Re-Investment act" for spending too much and failing to help the economy. He then asserts that President Obama, and Democrats in Congress are losing the debate on health care, and risk damaging their position by keeping their same arguing points. Speaker Gingrich then continues to claim that the health care reform efforts will lead to a "big government plan" (par.9). After making these claims, Former Speaker Gingrich mentions another health reform effort in recent history by then-President Clinton, and compares his response then, to the debate now. That it would be impossible to get a comprehensive health care reform passed in one giant bill. He asserts that the best way to get reform, is to spread the bill out in several smaller bills that would be easier to read and understand, and would also give the minority opposition opportunities to come to the table with their own ideas. He summarizes, and concludes the argument with a call for multiple bills, and a statement that this approach is more democratic than President Obama's "take it or leave it strategy" (par.19)
Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence. First off, President Obama's op-ed article presents a great opening argument for health care reform by citing individuals that he has met, and stories of people who have talked to him. He makes a strong emotional appeal to the humanity of the issue, and an attempt to relate these stories and scenarios to everyday Americans. There are several instances in his article where he relates the potential consequences of avoiding health care reform, with statements like "If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." (par. 17), and the benefits of adopting it, such as the statement "... reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and our government." (par. 6). Now, while President Obama does as mentioned before, make a compelling argument based on pathos, the emotion of the issue, he lacks an appeal to the logos, or logical side of the argument. In the article he cites support from the American Medical Association, the American nurses association, the AARP, and a national survey done in 2007. However he does not name any of the sources for several of the conclusions in his article, and as a reader, a lack thereof may discourage you from adopting his ideas.
Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan. At the onset of his article, Former Speaker Gingrich criticized President Obama for trying to "control the debate" (par. 2) as well as failing to deliver on the stimulus package he proposed and passed in early 2009. While Mr. Gingrich may have some legitimacy to his argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, and the potential of the new health care plan to be costly and ineffective, he does not cite any studies done to prove this. Mr. Gingrich also does not change the tone of his paper from a strictly argument-based approach. Mr. Gingrich makes appeals to pathos, emotion in his paper to the general mistrust of government ability that is widely accepted by his party members and base. He continues this appeal, with statements such as describing the plan as a "liberal health care bill" (par. 7) and "the same old, big government plan in prettier rhetorical paper." (par. 7) After making these points, Mr. Gingrich offers a possible alternative plan to Democrats proposals, with dividing the bill in several parts. This kind of idea still appeals to the emotion of the issue to the party base mostly. It could also be viewed as an appeal to a logical, methodical approach to health care that arguably, would give the reform a better chance at openness and bipartisanship.
So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate? President Obama makes a strong case for the pathos of the issue, with his references to the hardships that many individuals have experienced from the current health care system. He also makes an appeal at the logical side of the argument, with some references to a national survey done, as well as the support of overhaul by three major organizations. His argument is strong, but it does lack a sufficient amount of factual data and statistics to cause me to support his position. On the other side of the debate, Former Speaker Gingrich made several appeals to pathos, but mostly to members of his own party, and Americans who may be distrusting of government influence. He provides for some possible alternative solutions to the health reforms, but does little to provide any data or evidence to support his claims of government inefficiency and waste in this potential system. As a reader, I was also disappointed with his article for failing to draw on any hard evidence to support his positions.
Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement. It will have long lasting, and far-reaching effects to every American, and possibly nations and people outside of the country. With a topic of this magnitude, politicians can't afford to let personal preferences and opinions to get in the way of evidence and facts. Without these in hand with reform, any effort will simply degrade to whoever can argue the best, or who can shout the loudest.
Works Cited
Obama, Barack. "Why We Need Health Care Reform." New York Times. Web.
16, August 2009. Copyright 2009. The New York Times Company.
Gingrich, Newt. "We Get Last Word On Health Care Reform." The Washington Examiner. Web.
4 September 2009.
care-reform-8194219-57010122.html>
President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform. After this, he proceeds to recount his experiences of talking with individuals about health care. He mentions several instances where the current health insurance system has led to denial of claims, which have resulted in extremely high costs for the individuals, or even death in some cases. Most of his article makes a strong attempt to relate health care to average Americans. After having made his argument on denial of claims, President Obama switches gears and moves to a description of the type of health reform he wants to see in a bill. He proceeds to argue that we need cuts in "waste and inefficiency" ( Obama par. 6) and that we also need to rein in subsidies to insurance companies. The article continues with an argument supporting an end to the practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. President Obama also spends a large part of the article defending the measures of the bill, and arguing that the health care plan will not adversely affect Americans' choice of their doctor, or care provider. In closing, President Obama concludes that Americans will come together, and support the health care reform.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform." He begins his argument by criticizing President Obama for attempting to control the health care debate, and compares him to two other Presidents who he claims, had great orating skills like President Obama, but recognized that they can't control debate. He then brings up, and criticizes President Obama's "America's Recovery and Re-Investment act" for spending too much and failing to help the economy. He then asserts that President Obama, and Democrats in Congress are losing the debate on health care, and risk damaging their position by keeping their same arguing points. Speaker Gingrich then continues to claim that the health care reform efforts will lead to a "big government plan" (par.9). After making these claims, Former Speaker Gingrich mentions another health reform effort in recent history by then-President Clinton, and compares his response then, to the debate now. That it would be impossible to get a comprehensive health care reform passed in one giant bill. He asserts that the best way to get reform, is to spread the bill out in several smaller bills that would be easier to read and understand, and would also give the minority opposition opportunities to come to the table with their own ideas. He summarizes, and concludes the argument with a call for multiple bills, and a statement that this approach is more democratic than President Obama's "take it or leave it strategy" (par.19)
Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence. First off, President Obama's op-ed article presents a great opening argument for health care reform by citing individuals that he has met, and stories of people who have talked to him. He makes a strong emotional appeal to the humanity of the issue, and an attempt to relate these stories and scenarios to everyday Americans. There are several instances in his article where he relates the potential consequences of avoiding health care reform, with statements like "If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." (par. 17), and the benefits of adopting it, such as the statement "... reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and our government." (par. 6). Now, while President Obama does as mentioned before, make a compelling argument based on pathos, the emotion of the issue, he lacks an appeal to the logos, or logical side of the argument. In the article he cites support from the American Medical Association, the American nurses association, the AARP, and a national survey done in 2007. However he does not name any of the sources for several of the conclusions in his article, and as a reader, a lack thereof may discourage you from adopting his ideas.
Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan. At the onset of his article, Former Speaker Gingrich criticized President Obama for trying to "control the debate" (par. 2) as well as failing to deliver on the stimulus package he proposed and passed in early 2009. While Mr. Gingrich may have some legitimacy to his argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, and the potential of the new health care plan to be costly and ineffective, he does not cite any studies done to prove this. Mr. Gingrich also does not change the tone of his paper from a strictly argument-based approach. Mr. Gingrich makes appeals to pathos, emotion in his paper to the general mistrust of government ability that is widely accepted by his party members and base. He continues this appeal, with statements such as describing the plan as a "liberal health care bill" (par. 7) and "the same old, big government plan in prettier rhetorical paper." (par. 7) After making these points, Mr. Gingrich offers a possible alternative plan to Democrats proposals, with dividing the bill in several parts. This kind of idea still appeals to the emotion of the issue to the party base mostly. It could also be viewed as an appeal to a logical, methodical approach to health care that arguably, would give the reform a better chance at openness and bipartisanship.
So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate? President Obama makes a strong case for the pathos of the issue, with his references to the hardships that many individuals have experienced from the current health care system. He also makes an appeal at the logical side of the argument, with some references to a national survey done, as well as the support of overhaul by three major organizations. His argument is strong, but it does lack a sufficient amount of factual data and statistics to cause me to support his position. On the other side of the debate, Former Speaker Gingrich made several appeals to pathos, but mostly to members of his own party, and Americans who may be distrusting of government influence. He provides for some possible alternative solutions to the health reforms, but does little to provide any data or evidence to support his claims of government inefficiency and waste in this potential system. As a reader, I was also disappointed with his article for failing to draw on any hard evidence to support his positions.
Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement. It will have long lasting, and far-reaching effects to every American, and possibly nations and people outside of the country. With a topic of this magnitude, politicians can't afford to let personal preferences and opinions to get in the way of evidence and facts. Without these in hand with reform, any effort will simply degrade to whoever can argue the best, or who can shout the loudest.
Works Cited
Obama, Barack. "Why We Need Health Care Reform." New York Times. Web.
16, August 2009. Copyright 2009. The New York Times Company.
Gingrich, Newt. "We Get Last Word On Health Care Reform." The Washington Examiner. Web.
4 September 2009.
care-reform-8194219-57010122.html>
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
New Essay Exam
The Subject of my study is the current health care debate in Congress. My research has taken me to many sources, from both sides for, and against the health care proposals in Congress. There are many opinions on the subject, and much material to choose from, all with many different methods of appealing to an audience. There are also various methods of communicating this to an audience. For right or wrong, these methods are effective, and sometimes destructive. My conclusion of the research that I have done so far, is that this topic is extremely broad-based, and is one that a logical approach is the best to solve.
I have looked at this issue, and done my best to keep an open mind. I have found along the way, that both sides do have legitimate arguments for their favor. I believe that we need medical malpractice reform, but I also believe we need a public option on the table. Americans are clearly divided on the subject. Most polls show the public split right down the middle on support of these reform plans. The greatest risk that we have as average citizens, it to remain uneducated about a reform plan that will affect all of Americans for generations to come.
In this debate on health care, there is a good deal of emotion involved. Throughout the summer of this year, there have been many crowded, raucous town hall meetings filled with people who are upset over the health care system, whether for or against. Also, many people have become fearful that they could lose the insurance that they have with health reform. Without a doubt, the emotional part of this debate has taken hold of the issue at hand, and Americans all around the country are nervous, or angry about the current system.
There have also been several arguments made on behalf of reform, or against it, on the topic of ethics. Critics of the overhaul claim it will lead to rationing of care, while advocates of it state that millions will remain uninsured. In my analysis of these arguments, I think that while you can use the ethical portion for either side, it is an extension of the emotional appeal to the humanity of the situation. While it is definitely effective in rallying opposition, or support of reform, it is my belief that it does not address the issues in the best possible way.
Other types of arguments have been done based on facts, and statistics. Such as costs of reform plans, projected costs of the health care system in the future, as well as a whole host of other studies done by everything from fact check groups, to Universities. When an individual makes a decision about this health care reform, they should do it with the facts in hand, and the ethical considerations as well. The largest problem facing the debate, is the inability for the individual to look beyond their own beliefs, or the beliefs of others to even consider an opposing view to their own. However, I believe that Americans will look for the truth, whatever that may be on an issue such as this, and they will be interested, and concerned with knowing how reform will affect them.
If health care reform is to truly be passed, then the most important thing for Americans to do is to be educated on the issues. We can't afford to take anyone's opinion and make it our own, we have to be willing to do the research, and make the final decision ourselves. Thomas Jefferson had once stated that "the most important component of any democracy, is an educated populace". Americans must take these words to heart.
I have looked at this issue, and done my best to keep an open mind. I have found along the way, that both sides do have legitimate arguments for their favor. I believe that we need medical malpractice reform, but I also believe we need a public option on the table. Americans are clearly divided on the subject. Most polls show the public split right down the middle on support of these reform plans. The greatest risk that we have as average citizens, it to remain uneducated about a reform plan that will affect all of Americans for generations to come.
In this debate on health care, there is a good deal of emotion involved. Throughout the summer of this year, there have been many crowded, raucous town hall meetings filled with people who are upset over the health care system, whether for or against. Also, many people have become fearful that they could lose the insurance that they have with health reform. Without a doubt, the emotional part of this debate has taken hold of the issue at hand, and Americans all around the country are nervous, or angry about the current system.
There have also been several arguments made on behalf of reform, or against it, on the topic of ethics. Critics of the overhaul claim it will lead to rationing of care, while advocates of it state that millions will remain uninsured. In my analysis of these arguments, I think that while you can use the ethical portion for either side, it is an extension of the emotional appeal to the humanity of the situation. While it is definitely effective in rallying opposition, or support of reform, it is my belief that it does not address the issues in the best possible way.
Other types of arguments have been done based on facts, and statistics. Such as costs of reform plans, projected costs of the health care system in the future, as well as a whole host of other studies done by everything from fact check groups, to Universities. When an individual makes a decision about this health care reform, they should do it with the facts in hand, and the ethical considerations as well. The largest problem facing the debate, is the inability for the individual to look beyond their own beliefs, or the beliefs of others to even consider an opposing view to their own. However, I believe that Americans will look for the truth, whatever that may be on an issue such as this, and they will be interested, and concerned with knowing how reform will affect them.
If health care reform is to truly be passed, then the most important thing for Americans to do is to be educated on the issues. We can't afford to take anyone's opinion and make it our own, we have to be willing to do the research, and make the final decision ourselves. Thomas Jefferson had once stated that "the most important component of any democracy, is an educated populace". Americans must take these words to heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
