User:Ahowell2/sandbox

Analysis of “Vaccine Controversies” There's not a year that goes by at our hospital where we don't see a child suffer and die from a vaccine-preventable disease,” states Paul Offit, a pediatrician who leads a Vaccine Education Center located in Philadelphia (Lemons 2). In the article “Vaccine Controversies,” Jane Lemons argues that parents need to vaccinate their children. While supporting her stance with scientific data, she takes her proposition a bit further to suggest they should not be given a choice, specifically if their child is attending a public school where he/she could put other kids at risk. The author cleverly uses rhetoric appeals, organization, and factual evidence to effectively support her argument. Lemon's uses pathos efficiently to persuade the reader. The author states that 1 in 10 parents choose not to immunize their child. This is a significant number of children that are exposed to preventable diseases. Not only are these children at risk but they are also at risk of spreading the disease. Dr. Paul Offit questions, "Is it your right as a parent in this country to expose your child to a potentially fatal infection? I think the answer to that question is no” (Lemons 2). This statement is a perfect example of pathos. The question is screaming with emotion and furthermore may make the reader reevaluate their stance. A story is shared about a young boy who was unable to be vaccinated due to his leukemia condition and was put at extreme risk by kids who were not vaccinated when a measles outbreak occurred at school. The author uses this story to show the choice parents make on whether or not to vaccinate their children also impacts the lives around them. The use of pathos appeals to the emotions of parents and their efforts to keep them safe. The article "Vaccine Controversies" is laden with ethos and logos appeals to create a well-rounded persuasive paper. "Many of these parents also tend to trust their own online research or the experiences of others more than they trust research conducted by the scientific and medical communities” (Lemons 3). This is an excellent example of ethos and logos. It uses credentials as a way to highlight this sentence and it appeals to a reader's reasoning. Additionally, Dr. Charles Goodman, a California pediatrician states, “patients who are not vaccinated are presenting a clear and present danger... [to] many patients” (Lemons 5). Goodman refuses to treat patients who are not vaccinated because they put other children at risk in the waiting room. By using Goodman’s credentials as a pediatrician, Lemons is using ethos and proves this quote is reliable to the reader. Kairos is also present throughout the article. Lemons brings up recent outbreaks such as Ebola and most currently, the Zika Virus, which is known to cause birth defects. As vaccines are being created for these newer viruses, parents’ will once again have to choose whether or not to vaccinate themselves and their children (Lemons 6). With several viruses on the rise, this is an opportune time to spread awareness and hopefully help parents make the best decision for the health of their children and, in the case of the Zika Virus, their future children. The article is effectively organized to clearly relay the argument. Jane Lemons introduces the topic and explains arguments for and against the use of vaccines for children. She starts off by stating that, “two centuries of scientific evidence have proven conclusively that vaccines can prevent deadly diseases.” This sets the argument and the author’s stance for the remainder of the paper. She then spreads out the article with sub-headers addressing the concerns of parents against the use of vaccines while using facts and rhetorical devices to refute these arguments. This element makes the paper easy to follow and navigate through each supporting idea. For example, she refutes the common misconception that vaccines can cause autism in children. Originally, an article had been published by a medical doctor inferring a link between vaccines and autism; however, the article proved to have no scientific evidence to support it. Lemons also mentions the lead author, Andrew Wakefield, lost his medical license to show this is not a legitimate concern about vaccines. Factual evidence is drawn on to back Lemon's stance on vaccines. The author states that to stop an outbreak of a disease, the vaccination rates must be between 96 and 99 percent. This is an alarmingly high rate and especially surprising considering that “1 in 10 parents are delaying or forgoing some or all recommended vaccines for their children” (Lemons 1). These statistics support the argument that kids should be vaccinated, not only to protect them but also the community around them. Lemons heavily integrates statistics and surveys in order to provide a better persuasive article. Additionally, Lemons includes a brief history of the discovery of vaccines and how they developed. The information, background, and the discussion of controversies truly inform the reader of the political, ethical, and history of vaccines. Jane Lemons successfully incorporated rhetoric appeals, organization, and factual evidence to support her positive stance on vaccines for children. Lemons does an exceptional job acknowledging and foreseeing fears and counterarguments her audience may present. Moreover, she integrates scientific data to refute these ideas and persuade the reader to reevaluate their perspective over this controversial issue. Overall, the author has thoroughly developed a persuasive, informative article, backed by scientific facts, and complete with appeals that are sure to draw on the readers’ emotions.