Commentary #4

I really enjoyed the start of the proposal, however the beginning felt more like an introduction for your ethical argument than for your proposal argument. It needs to be more of a transition from the end of your ethical argument to your thesis of the proposal. Your thesis is a good solution for the problem you described in the ethical argument. I wish you could be a little more specific when you state that an "unbiased worldwide free media with free independent journalists" is the solution. I must say that you are specific; but because of the clarity that every thesis needs, I feel like you should add some more details. A skeptic could also doubt the effectiveness of this solution. I think most people would agree that it is hard to take bias out of journalism. And if this is worldwide, there are so many interests by different countries that it could be very challenging to take bias out of journalism. You might have to present how we will achieve that.

            One aspect that I felt lacking was the argument that supports your proposal. There were not a lot of reasons presented that you think will solve the problem. The body paragraphs talk more about historical situations where countries were being censored by their oppressive government. More than anything, the paragraphs call for a need of your solution, however they do not tell the audience anything about the effectiveness of your particular solution. For your body paragraphs, I think you should go more into detail about what it means to have an "unbiased worldwide free media". I think it would be good to go into the minute details to show how this is an alternative method to the current status of the media. Maybe give some hypothetical situations and compare how your version of the media covers it compared to today's faulty media. Maybe also talk about how we can take out the bias from news coverage.

            I think one paragraph should be included that describes other solutions than the one you presented to your ethical situation. Afterwards, you do not necessarily have to refute them, you just have to justify that your solution is the best one. By doing that you dispel some of the counterproposals that the audience might have and you show the effectiveness of your proposal.

            You have a clear problem that can be solved and I feel like your solution is a good one for this problem. I think you need to argue more on behalf of your solution and give reasons that show your solution is the best. You might have to explain how we can achieve a "unbiased worldwide media with free independent journalists". Show how this media compares to the biased media that we have today. Layout your case why you believe "unbiased worldwide media" is the best solution to your problem.

For Soudabeh Sabour

Proposal Argument First Draft

Tissues are the Way to Go

            The exclusion of animals in the field of scientific experimentation does not mean that advances in the field will not be blocked. Cures for human diseases, reactions to certain substances can still be discovered through experimentation by other means. The goal is to keep the momentum of science without leaving millions of innocent animals in its wake. To achieve this, the solution is to experiment on humans, whose intentions are to find cures to ailments and other diseases for their own species. However, I am not proposing that experimentation should be on live humans--too many complications would arise in that scenario. The best solution to this problem of replacing animals for advances in science is the use of human tissues.

            Experimentation on human tissues offer the best results to see how the human body would react to certain substances. There is no better way to see how a human heart would react to a chemical than by injecting that chemical into some human heart tissue. Given the uniformity in the human heart cells, how the individual tissue reacts to a chemical is a good indicator of how the entire heart would react, producing better results in medicine. The same cannot be said when it comes to experimenting on animals. Alan Dove, in his piece "The Search for Animal Alternatives, writes, "they are often poor predictors of human results. Besides interspecies differences in physiology, animal studies rely on uniform populations, virtually guaranteeing that they will miss idiosyncratic reactions". It seems nonsensical that a rat heart and human heart would react to the substance in the same way. If a rat heart reacts positively to a chemical, how does that indicate whether a human heart would react positively to the same chemical? The only way to see how a human heart reacts to a substance is to experiment on the heart. Human tissues are the best solution for that, producing better results on experiments while protecting the integrity of a fully operational heart.

            Getting better results for experiments is another incentive for large drug companies looking to minimize costs. One of the biggest costs for drug companies is research and lawsuits. Testing on human tissues is much faster than compared to testing on animals. Compared to how a liver tissue reacts to toxic levels, the same test for animals would cause drug companies " to use much more of the drug, wait a lot longer and pay for the upkeep and eventual autopsies of the animals it used" (Feder). Overtime, the cost starts to add up for these large drug companies, increasing their burden in their research costs. Human tissues, while not the only solution, are key for drug companies trying to reduce costs. Another way to reduce costs for major drug companies is to minimize payments from litigation. This can be accomplished be using human tissue as opposed to animals due to the better results they yield. Executives in the industry estimate that "as much as 25 percent of the drugs tested on animals [fail] to show side effects that later proved serious enough to prevent the drugs from being marketed" (Feder). Better results from experimentation will make it harder for consumers to sue these large companies. In the marketplace, these large drug companies are incentivized to produce the best products. It would behoove companies to lower that 25 percent number, reducing their chances of getting sued by a litigation frenzy environment. Experiments on human tissues can offer that as they lower the costs for large drug companies.

            Human tissue should be a replacement of animal use in experimentation because of the abundance of the material. Tissue does not refer to any part of the body, all tissue is a collection of cells that comprise an organ or blood. Humans have an ample amount of tissue that can be spared for the advances in science. Tissues that are experimented on frequently come in different types, including "collections of blood from healthy donors, collections of diseased tissue (especially tumors), removed during the course of diagnosis or treatment, and collections of tissue removed during postmortem examination" (Lipworth, Forsyth, Kerrige). This wide array of different tissues gives scientists different options to work with. Cancer research can become much more successful using the tissue as opposed to an animal. Seeing how eyes react to a chemical can be more effective in predicting how successful that chemical will we when it is mass produced to the human population. Another luxury is the ever-present supply of the tissue bank. In the postmortem examination, healthy tissues and diseased tissues from different organs can be extracted to fight future problems. Because of how many different types of tissue there are, they are a great replacement for animals when it comes to experimentation.

            Some may say the testing on live humans is the best solution if we are going to exclude animals. I tend to agree that live humans is a viable solution that seriously needs to be considered. However I cannot envision that point at which this makes both the researcher and the subject happy. From the researcher's perspective, it could be very difficult to find subjects where they would inject possibly deadly chemicals into one's body. Live subjects would also charge fees, something that researchers at large companies want to keep at a minimum level. If things were to go bad, the subject would likely seek a monetary reward on top of the payment to participate in the experiment. Experimentation is a risky business with many failures more than successes. Human life can be greatly affected from the inherent risk that comes with scientific research.

            To reduce that risk, human tissue is the clear answer to the problem of research on living organisms while not on animals. Because of the abundance of human tissue and the variety that it comes in, our experiments become that more accurate at a level that cannot be achieved through animal experiments. How an animal reacts to a chemical is completely different than that of a human. If we are searching for solutions to human medical problems, then the human body logically needs to be the source of the experiment, with the best solution being tissue. Science can still proceed without animals; in fact, it will take off with the use of more human tissue.  

 

Works Cited

 

Dove, Alan. "The Search for Animal Alternatives." Drug Discovery and Development 13.4           (2010): 10-13. Web. 5 August 2013

Feder, Barnaby. "Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products." New York Times, 12  September 2007. Web. 5 August 2013

Forseyth, Rowena, Ian Kerridge, Wendy Lipworth. "Tissue Donations to Biobank: A Review of

            Sociological Studies." Sociology of Health & Illness 33.5 (2011): 792-811. Academic         Search Premier. Web. 6 August 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commentary #3

First off I really enjoyed the quote as an attention grabber for the argument. It really fits with your argument that we should be able to see real-world images. However, you tend to lose the reader when you make the statement hoping for a perfect utopia with no violence. At the end of the introductory paragraph, there is no clear direction in which you go. From your thesis you believe that real-world images should be shown, but you never justify this claim with reasons. I suggest that you make an argument why the public should see the images. Talk about certain principles that censorship violates and why this is morally problematic.

            The second paragraph offers more of a solution than stating a violation of a certain principle. This should be included more in the proposal argument. The paragraph also lacks a criteria that is associated with your thesis. To improve this, a suggestion could be to layout a principle on why we should not censor, explain it, and defend it with some research you have found on this issue. You could also weigh this issue, making your argument that much more effective.

            The criteria in the third paragraph is very ambiguous. I have a tough time seeing where you are trying to go with this paragraph. It also does not really relate to your thesis that there should not be any censorship. My suggestion would be to have a second criteria that defends the public's right to see these violent images. To bolster this paragraph you could include another piece of evidence that is pertinent to this criteria.

            The piece of evidence used in the fourth paragraph is one that could be challenged by a skeptical audience. The biggest problem readers could find in the piece of evidence is that it does not have anything to really do with your thesis. How the media covered the Iraq War, from the perspective of the smaller countries involved compared to that for more prominent countries, does not enhance your argument that we should see real-world violent images. The analysis of the quote focuses more on the corruption in the media, which could be a criteria you are trying to argue; however that criteria is not clearly addressed in the paragraph. If that is your criteria, you might have to defend it because everyone might not agree with it.

            What could greatly benefit your argument is an inclusion of the opposing views to your position. Once doing that, discredit them and your argument would be that much better. Another improvement could be to also better your conclusion. It is an abrupt stop to your argument. I think you should wrap everything up succinctly.

            If the thesis is improved, you argument will be that much better. Give an explanation on why we should not censor violent images for the public. In your body paragraphs, present certain principles that relate back to your thesis. Use compelling evidence to argue your thesis. Once this is done, your argument will be that much more compelling.

 

For Soudabeh Sabour    

"Vivisection" by C.S. Lewis

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. What are some of the holes in the arguments of both sides of the debate on vivisection?
2. Is human life more important animal life?
Question for the author?
3. What do you believe is the status of humans in the animal kingdom and does the Bible affect your belief?

Throughout our anthropology, we grown accustomed to this idea of the superiority of man over animal.  We have domesticated animal for humans, we use them for sources of entertainment, and they constitute a great majority of our food supplies. In addition, with the dawn of the scientific revolution in the 18th century, animals have been used in experiments. Vivisection refers to the scientific experimentation on living animals. In his piece "Vivisection", author C.S. Lewis discusses the arguments of the proponents and those against vivisection. He shows the justification of both sides and then rebukes them; however it can be concluded that Lewis is in favor of vivisection from his belief that man is more important than animal.

            After presenting the theological argument that man is more important than animal, Lewis presents the "naturalists" with no theological background. He describes them as individuals "who will most contemptuously brush aside any consideration of animal suffering if it stands in the way of research will also, on another context, most vehemently deny that there is any radical difference between man and the other animals" (226). Lewis points out the hypocrisy of the naturalists who experiment on animals in the name of science that only really benefits humans. He feels we should not hold animals in captivity to research them and their behavior just so we can have a great understanding of these animals. This way of thinking is very similar to the religious idea that man is more important than animal since they are subject to our research.

            Lewis believes that the perception that animal is inferior to man must be in place or dangerous consequences could ensue. If that is abandoned, then why not experiment on men that we could consider inferior, such as "imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists" (227). This leads to s slippery slope in that the definition of inferiority becomes subjective in the eyes of who wants to do the experimentation on the men that they considered inferior. Nazis could experiment on non-Aryans, colonizers could experiment on slaves from Africa. Lewis argues that there is an innate relationship between humans in that we are also the same species. We should respect it. I do not believe that Lewis does not have any empathy towards animals, he just has a utilitarian view that the well-being of the human race is of the upmost importance.

"Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. What is the perspective of individuals who work on behalf of the colonial power?
2. What role do the natives play in how an officer does their job?
3. What effects does colonialism have on the colonial power?

In looking back on the history of the colonial period, much of the attention is focused on the colonial power and the subjects under the colonial rule. We discuss how the interests of the colonizing country came to fruition, from the extracting of natural resources to using coerced workers to create cheaper costs. We also look from the perspective of the natives, seeing the horrible working conditions they had to endure, the destruction of their native culture, and the deaths of many family members. However, not as much thought is given to the people who worked on behalf of the colonial power.

            In his piece “Shooting an Elephant”, George Orwell recalls a personal experience when he was a police officer for the British Empire in Burma. While a majority of this exposition was about his story killing an elephant, he states his position on the colonial circumstance as thus, “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British” (1). Orwell comes to this conclusion from all the atrocities that he has witnessed during his tenure as the police officer. He says that he could “see the dirty work of [the] Empire at close quarters” (1). He is very critical of the British and towards the colonialist model that had been used by so many nations in Europe.

            Although Orwell shows his disdain for European colonialism, he also realizes that it is going to be difficult to demolish it. The elephant in this piece is used not to just tell a story, but is symbolic of the beast that is colonialism. One shot was not able to kill the elephant. It took multiple shots for the elephant to then collapse, but it still did not die. Orwell describes the beast as “powerless to move and yet powerless to die” (7). All of this is a metaphor of a system that is going to be hard to eradicate. Colonialism greatly benefitted the European countries that they will not give them up so easily, just like how the elephant was holding on for its life. Orwell fears that colonialism, amidst all of its egregious aspects, will sustain. However, just like the elephant, it will be gone.   

           

Commentary #2

The author has a good beginning but the thesis needs to be improved. I feel the thesis has nothing to do with your position on the rhetorical effectiveness of the piece, it is just regurgitating the argument that Hitchens makes. The thesis needs to show your position on how successful the piece was at using rhetorical strategies to makes the argument. For the thesis, I would consider finding what you thought of the piece and how these strategies affected your opinion of it. 

The paragraph of ethos is off to a good start, but it can be expanded more. The topic sentence does not really refer back to your thesis. Also the content that follows in the paragraph does not really relate to the topic sentence. Your first example was really strong in how Hitchens alludes to ethos by building a bridge and relating to his audience. Your second point was great. Hitchens has immense amount of credibility because he underwent a session of waterboarding. I think you should expand on that a little more because it was very effective. I think you should show more of the success of these appeals for the reader.

A lot of time needs to be spent on the section that appeals to pathos. There is not real direct evidence pulled from the original text. While you did paraphrase, I think it would be more effective if you used direct quotes. I think you could go in the direction of talking about the concrete and vivid diction used while Hitchens describes his experience being waterboarded. You could also talk about the specific details that Hitchens goes into before the actual act. Then tie in how effective these appeals to pathos are.

The topic sentence for the logos section talks about the effects of logos in the text, but it does not talk about how successful or not the appeals to logos were in the argument that Hitchens made. Instead it talks about a claim that can be inferred from the core argument that the author makes. The first piece of evidence that you used was good, but I think it could be made stronger. I think many people would counter that point and say that this is just one incident and does not represent the great majority of intelligence gathered from this technique. Your evaluation of the quote was good, but it should include how successful it was for the audience. I think another concrete piece of evidence, like a quote, could greatly benefit this section. 

The appeal to kairos was good and could be expanded upon. I would consider removing the history after 2008 when the piece was written. I think the sole focus should be placed during the time leading up to when this piece was written.

To earn a better score, the thesis must be improved. It should not repeat the argument that Hitchens made in his piece. It has to be your evaluation of his argument and talk about whether the appeals to the rhetorical strategies were successful or not. After that, all body paragraphs with their examples should tie back to your thesis. Once that is completed, you will earn an excellent grade. 

 

 

"A Small Place" by Jamaica Kincaid

Questions that the author attempts to answer:

1. What was the experience like for a country under colonial rule?

2. What are the conditions living in a post-colonial era?

3. How are foreigners perceived by natives of impoverished countries?

Antigua, a tropical island in the Caribbean, has become a huge vacation spot for Westerners as they seek refuge and a break from the crazy lives they live back home. We get this feel that we are truly in paradise as we reside on an tropical island surrounded by white sandy beaches and pristine oceans. It may be a paradise for the tourists, but life on the island for the natives is not as great. In her piece "A Small Place", Jamaica Kincaid writes in an accusatory tone as she shows contempt for the individuals that have no idea of what Antigua is actually like. She dives into the history of colonialism that the natives had to endure under the control of the English empire and also the current state of this impoverished country. There is an empathy gap that Kincaid is trying to highlight in order to open the eyes of the Western world.

Citizens of this nation tend to lose sight of the privileges that come with living in this country. I know I do. I always expect there to be power and electricity--when the huge blackout occurred a few years ago I did not know what to do. I always take for granted that I can take a hot shower on a winter morning. These are luxuries that only a select few in the world can feel experience. Kincaid also points out that many of us get bored with life so we go on vacation, another privilege that only a select few can do as well. This is in stark contrast to the desolate living conditions of Antiguans and their inability to escape them. 

Kincaid uses Antigua as a symbol of all colonized nations under the colonial period of world history. The problems that Antigua faces are not exclusively to them, they are problems that all former colonized nations have been through. Just like Antigua was robbed of its own other language, countries in Africa and Latin America lost their languages to European powers. Language provides a national identity for a people. When that is lost to a foreign entity, nationalism is much weaker. European powers, as a means to exploit natural resources, used coerced labor to maximize output. Natives of these lands were dehumanized as they were viewed as commodities as opposed to human beings. The flow of money, more often than not, land into the hand of the foreign power, like in the case of the Barclays Brothers. 

Americans cannot relate to any of this because since this period of decolonization begun, after the end of World War II, our country has been the world's preeminent superpower. Kincaid wants to give us more context on why there is so much poverty into the world. She wants to open our eyes to what conditions most people in the world population are living in.