I read an article titled Breast Cancer and Oral Contraception by Ruben Obregon. This article talks about the possible link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer. After reading this article, it is apparent that the writer is trying to convince his audience to be more critical of their medications and notice the certain controversial associations of some major foundations. Overall the writer creates an argument that is heavy in pathos but lacks sufficient ethos and logos thus making the argument weak.
Based on the topic of this article the audience would mainly be women and specifically those women who use or have used oral contraceptives. The main type of appeal used in this article was an appeal to the emotions, pathos. Words like carcinogen, cancer, and risk are often used in this text and are words that appeal to a reader’s emotions in a negative way. These words create fear within a reader and this fear can often persuade a reader to take action. Without having hard evidence these words alone don’t mean much but can still persuade a reader to take action.
Based on the topic of this article the audience would mainly be women and specifically those women who use or have used oral contraceptives. The main type of appeal used in this article was an appeal to the emotions, pathos. Words like carcinogen, cancer, and risk are often used in this text and are words that appeal to a reader’s emotions in a negative way. These words create fear within a reader and this fear can often persuade a reader to take action. Without having hard evidence these words alone don’t mean much but can still persuade a reader to take action.
While this article used plenty of pathos it lacked logos along with ethos. After reading the article, there is no clear sense of the authority the author has on this topic. Did he do studies on the topic, is he an oncologist? The reader gets no background knowledge of the author that would lead the reader to believe he is knowledgeable or trustworthy on this topic. I would like to know what credentials the author has that could make him an authority on the subject.
The logos in this article, like ethos, is underdeveloped. In the third paragraph the author refers to two studies done that found a correlation between the use of oral contraceptives and breast cancer but the content of these studies is vague. Nothing is ever said about how the studies were conducted or the specific, statistical results of the studies. As a reader I would like statistical evidence from these studies. I want to know the occurrence rate of oral contraceptives leading to breast cancer and how many types of oral contraceptives have been found to lead to breast cancer.
Even though this article lacks ethos and logical appeal, it does a good job of addressing the opposition. The author presents the idea that breast cancer is generally treatable and few people die from breast cancer caused by oral contraceptives. The author then refutes this by saying that even one person lost to breast cancer caused by oral contraceptives is one person too many. Additionally, the author brings up the opposition's point that the number of women who will develop contraceptive related cancer is insignificant. The author proceeds to point out that treatment is in no way insignificant so the number of women who develop cancer should not be overlooked.
The logos in this article, like ethos, is underdeveloped. In the third paragraph the author refers to two studies done that found a correlation between the use of oral contraceptives and breast cancer but the content of these studies is vague. Nothing is ever said about how the studies were conducted or the specific, statistical results of the studies. As a reader I would like statistical evidence from these studies. I want to know the occurrence rate of oral contraceptives leading to breast cancer and how many types of oral contraceptives have been found to lead to breast cancer.
Even though this article lacks ethos and logical appeal, it does a good job of addressing the opposition. The author presents the idea that breast cancer is generally treatable and few people die from breast cancer caused by oral contraceptives. The author then refutes this by saying that even one person lost to breast cancer caused by oral contraceptives is one person too many. Additionally, the author brings up the opposition's point that the number of women who will develop contraceptive related cancer is insignificant. The author proceeds to point out that treatment is in no way insignificant so the number of women who develop cancer should not be overlooked.
In the end, Obregon develops a mediocre argument that lacks credibility and hard evidence. The reader does not get a sense of the author’s connection to the topic or his credentials relating to the topic. Additionally, the argument lacks statistics and other descriptive facts. Studies were presented in this argument however their details were vague. Overall, the argument is weak but if the author shares his qualifications and adds statistical evidence the argument has the potential to be very powerful.
No comments:
Post a Comment