Paper #1 Instructions

.docx

School

Oklahoma City Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by PrivateMask2408

Due 2/17/2023 Paper #1 Instructions Your assignment : Choose one of the issues from either Module 1 or 2 in your textbook. Select the one side of the argument that you felt was most persuasive and share how the author was able to effectively justify their position and support their reasoning. State clearly what element of the argument was most persuasive and why. Additionally, find a weakness in the same argument and suggest how the author could have improved the writing. (If you cannot find a weakness, you should consider a different argument.) Your paper should contain the following: ● Intro (including thesis) ● Body of your paper: ● side of the argument you felt was most persuasive and why ● weakness in the argument and suggestion on how to improve it ● Conclusion Your paper must be no less than 700 words, and must not exceed 800 words. Papers not meeting the word limit or exceeding the word limit will be penalized. You must use at least 1 outside source other than your book. Your paper must be clearly focused and well-reasoned. You must use APA style and provide appropriate parenthetical references and a reference sheet. Use appropriate grammar and organizational elements, as well as be written in third person. You only need to submit one file (preferably a Word document). The Benefits and Limitations of Mandatory State Immunizations Mandatory state immunizations have long been a topic of controversy due to the idea that the
government should not interfere with parents' choice of medical care (Chang, 2018). However, there is compelling research to suggest that routine vaccinations are essential in helping to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases such as polio or mumps. Stephen M. Perle's argument for mandatory state immunizations not only looks at the success of immunizations, but also considers its potential risks and the opposition's view on government interference (Holton et al., 2012). Through an exploration of Stephen M. Perle's argument and its limitations, this paper will look to uncover the benefits and drawbacks of mandatory state immunizations. The argument made by Stephen M. Perle is most persuasive. Perle's argument effectively justifies the need for vaccinations and calls for mandatory state immunizations using evidence-based research and data. He references the success of routine immunizations and how they can prevent the spread of dangerous diseases such as polio or mumps. He then goes into detail about the potential risks of the vaccine, stating that most vaccine adverse effects are very minor and only occur by chance, and that the main concerns are to do with the MMR vaccine and mercury-based preservative thiomersal. Perle's argument is then further supported via reference to the CDC, who promote nationwide vaccinations for children and adults, and to American Acadple, where he references conservative politicians who oppose mandatory vaccinations believing government should not interfere with an individual's choice of medical care (Holton et al., 2012). Perle further highlights the idea that, due to the success of immunizations, disease memory has faded, leading some parents to believe delaying or not getting the vaccine is a safe option (Holton et al., 2012). He goes on to say that if enough people believe this the herd immunity could fail, leading to the spread of disease. Throughout his writing, Perle cites sources, references studies and polls, and provides evidence-based research, which makes his point stronger and more persuasive as it shows he is not biased or
just offering an opinion. This also allows for readers to research for themselves should they choose and seek out the same sources Perle has used. Additionally, his writing is balanced, as he takes into consideration the opposing view, though still delivering an argument in favor of vaccinations. As persuasive as Stephen M. Perle's argument was, there was an element that was lacking in his writing. Specifically, there was no mention of any alternative forms of treatment for illnesses, aside from vaccinations, or any reference to research that may back up these claimed alternatives. While Perle has provided evidence-based research to support his arguments for mandatory state immunizations, there may still be arguments to be made for alternative forms of treatments that do not include vaccinations. For instance, traditional home remedies such as herbal medicines, acupuncture and chiropractic treatments have been shown to have success in treating certain illnesses, yet there was no mention of these by Perle. Adding in this type of information, even if only to acknowledge its existence, would have further strengthened his argument, while at the same time showing a balanced view on the issue. Similarly, if Perle were able to provide evidence to support any claims made by these alternative forms of treatments, it would have further strengthened his argument in favor of vaccinations. This could have been done by citing relevant studies or sources, such as medical studies or official reports, that indicate the effectiveness from such treatments (Joseph, 2020). For instance, studies could be cited that indicate herbal medicines are unable to adequately treat illnesses such as polio, or that homeopathic remedies do not prevent them from spreading (Goldenberg, 2016). The inclusion of such research would provide readers with additional information, enabling them to make an informed decision regarding the matter, which would ultimately aid Perle in advancing his argument for mandatory state immunizations. Furthermore, it would show that
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help