ENG 124 Grand Canyon University Uses of Evidence Essay

User Generated

zmpulanqbyy1

Humanities

ENG 124

Grand Canyon University

ENG

Description

Chapter 2 of the textbook discusses two scenarios in which evidence may not meet some audience’s expectations. In the first scenario, two scientific studies are in conflict with each other In the second scenario, a child psychiatrist uses stories from his patients rather than statistics as evidence. Each case poses a problem regarding the use of evidence: We sometimes have difficulty reconciling conflicting pieces of evidence, and we are reluctant to see stories, rather than statistics, as valid evidence. In the essay that you are writing right now, what kinds of evidence have you found?  In what way might it meet an audience's expectations? Name the audience, discuss how it may meet--or not meet--the audience's expectations, and explain why.

 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Name: Earnest Dixon, Jr Course: ENG-106 Date: February 19, 2020 Instructor: Professor Palenque Thank you for submitting your assignment! I hope this was a fun, yet challenging task. As I mentioned before, this assignment is what we call a “completion grade.” As long as you have completed the assignment and submitted it on time, you will earn full credit. Now, it is time to dig in to work! Wow …what a strong start! Your thesis, content, and overall organization is great. At this point, the only changes you need to make before you submit your final draft are the ones I have noted in the comments I made throughout your paper. As you review these, please let me know if you have any questions. God bless, Prof. Palenque Cases of illicit human organ trade are on the rise around the globe, especially in developed countries. The high number of cases result from little involvement of the government to stop the inhumane practice. It is not surprising to discover that the concerned governments are in a way involved in the unethical business. Cotemporary realities of illegal organ transactions are more horrific than what traditional mythical narratives told concerning organ snatching. Observers report that individuals in the high socio-economic class affiliate more to the illicit practice than any other economic class. Political or ideological prisoners in countries such as China fall victim to the trade, which the government appears to support. The prisoners get tested by force, and if they meet the donor criteria, the organ harvesting takes place benefitting the rich. Regardless, the involuntary donors end up dead as a custom while those untested survive. Shepherd reports that China is a central international figure in the trade, which often targets the weak and poverty-stricken citizens (2019). The author further states that other countries in inhumane trade include; Egypt, Israel, Bolivia, and Turkey, countries which are destinations for the harvested organs. Ejiofor states that detractors believe that there is a positive correlation between the high number of executions in China and the illicit human organ trade (2019). Some groups in China, as human rights activists imply, stand out as viable prey in the business, including Falun Gong, Uighurs, and Tibetans (Shepherd, 2019). The trade is ‘big busies,' given that the donors, through the families they leave behind, get no compensation for the forced but profitable donation. Therefore, the benefits are one-sided, as the organs are beneficial to the recipients, who are the affluent persons. World Health Organization directs that human organ donation should take into consideration the donor’s consent before harvesting (2020). Furthermore, the removal has to keep up with legal requirements, including the ethical interpretation of death. From the World's Health Organization's point of view, harvesting should occur after the donor volunteers to contribute. Also, some harvesting, depending on the organs, should occur after the donor dies, but the donation should not be the cause of death. In addition, the donation should have the sole purpose of saving lives through transplant. Therefore, the primary purpose of organ donation is not to make profits but rather to save lives (World Health Organization, 2020). Withal, the organization advises that the donor's state should protect the weak and needy from exploitation in transplant tourism. Research reveals that, beyond the Chinese Government forcing its prisoners to test for organ donation viability, it also accommodates trafficked human beings from other parts of the world. Similar to Chinese prisoners, the trafficked also becomes victims of the same fate (Shepherd, 2019). The government authorized forceful donation and sale of prisoners of war organs involves more wrong-doers other than the policymakers. Shepherd reports that organ harvesting involves a large number of hospitals, implying that practitioners also engage in unethical dealings (2019). Furthermore, predatory-brokers, dishonest government officials, and human traffickers run the black market. Therefore, the Chinese prisoners and those trafficked into China appear helpless since none of their dealers engage in legal dealings. Since Kwan indicates that China is a WHO member state, then directives the organization provides on organ donation is an excellent measure of how legal the documented practice is (2018). Shepherd's presentation of China's organ market, without a doubt, falls under illegal practices. The classification results from the forceful testing of potential donors, and the harvesting, irrespective of the organ and tissues involved, occurs when the casualty is alive. As an outcome, the organ harvesting results in the victim's death. Furthermore, the practice is unethical since the donation aims at benefiting the wealthy recipients since the financial gains are enticing. The wealthy end up purchasing the organ in international markets, meaning that families of the deceased donor receive no compensation. Also, poor buyers are not a prospective market for the organs, and they end up suffering as the supply for the organs is scarce while the demand is high. Moreover, the practice is illicit since it targets the poor and vulnerable in Chinese society. In most cases, the prisoners who fall, victims, are individuals who cannot buy their freedom and are left at the mercies of the government. The opportunistic government takes advantage of the prisoners by turning them into profits, all in the name of execution. Nevertheless, the unethical aspect goes to as far as placing the selfish interests before the humanitarian need to save lives who require transplantation in the country. The number of individuals who require transplant grows by the day, and just like the international market, China has a shortage in the organ banks. Given the situation, it would be more sensible to make the market equal for all, the poor and rich, since they have corresponding needs in transplantation. The involved hospitals are of questionable integrity into the practice, despite falling under the jurisdiction of corrupt policymakers. A substantial number of practitioners in hospitals are trained professionals and are aware of ethical practices. Unfortunately, the same practitioners have a hand in the illicit trade. Despite pressures from the government for the doctors to harvest the human organs, the concerned practitioners should be ethical enough to take a stand against the practice. Forceful organ harvesting in such a working environment is a moral dilemma for the clinicians. They could be facing threats from the government or their immediate employers while still having the option of putting ethical practices first. Nonetheless, the practitioners should not refrain from putting the interest of their patients first. Prisoners who pass the test for organ donation are the patients in the context, and doctors should listen to their pleas to realize they are involuntary organ donors (Essex, 2019). Withal, the doctors in the case study are unethical since they harvest the organs while the patient is alive. The conduct goes against international regulations such as those of the World Health Organization on organ harvesting (2020). Outcomes of the harvesting have proven detrimental as the donors end up dying. Therefore, the dilemma that medics face is non-complex since saving a life is of utmost significance. The most common kind of privilege the practitioners would forgo for saving lives could be financial benefits. Shepherd argues that individuals who run the black market are criminals, and the statement is true, given that all have no place for ethical practice in their dealings (2019). The involved hospitals and practitioners are no exemption as they also act contrary to the ethical code of conduct. World Medical Association (WMA) emphasizes that ethical medical practitioners should respect competent patient rights in line with embracing or refusing a form of treatment (2019). From the case study, the organ donation is a choice which the clinicians should allow the prisoners to make in ethical medical practices. A considerable number of the prisoners are in their best state to make sound decisions regarding the practice. As a result, most of them do not require practitioners' intervention to make decisions on their behalf, even in such sensitive instances. However, the doctors seem to exploit the prisoners’ vulnerabilities as justification for organ harvesting, without second thoughts. Withal, the dark government directives fuel the medical malpractices, and it becomes impossible for the prisoners to have a say on their fate in the exploitation. Similarly, further studies insist that ethical medical practices should include upholding human dignity while attending to patients in the practice environment (Rosenzweig, Novack, & Duke, 2017). When the government presents prisoners or trafficked individuals for organ harvesting, the concerned practitioners have no room for human dignity. The medics do not listen to the potential donors’ requests since they are the weak and poor, as the doctors perceive them as unprofitable to society. Such an approach is wrong since irrespective of who the patients are; they are still equal humans as the doctors. The human aspect of the victims should qualify them to earn respect from the medics. Shepherd states that the back-market existence has been for a considerable time, alluding that the number of victims has been substantial (2019). One perceives the extended period to be adequate for the involved criminals to realize their actions are of fatal magnitude. The outcome should be a conscious awakening to individuals who have a place for ethics in their dealings. In equal measure, the duration must have been enough for the government to single out on the 'dirty' officials and act on the other persons involved. However, the scenario is different as the government appears to embrace the unfair and exploitation of the prisoners. However, the factor gets worse since the government acknowledges the existence of the market and presents incorrect information on the issue. While the Chinese government insists that it carries out 10, 000 organ transplants per year, investigations into the concern indicates 100, 000 as the actual figure (Shepherd, 2019). From the variation in numbers, one can point out that the Chinese government is unethical for lying about such crucial details. Therefore, one remains doubtful about the government's claims of change from forceful organ harvesting and exploitation, due to the untrue statistics. References Ejiofor, P. F. (2019). The Ethics of Organ Sale (Doctoral dissertation, Central European University). Essex, R. (2019). Do codes of ethics and position statements help guide ethical decision making in Australian immigration detention centers? BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 52. Kwan, M. (2018). The World Health Organization framework for virus sharing: law, recent challenges, and its compliance. Public Health Law, Forthcoming. Rosenzweig, S., Novack, D., & Duke, P. (2017). Professionalism education at Drexel University College of Medicine. Medical Professionalism Best Practices: Professionalism in the 85. Shepherd, T. (2019). The Cruel Cut of a Vile Trade. Adelaidenow.com.au. Retrieved 18 February 2020, from https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/sa-weekend/organtrafficking-cruel-cut-of-a-vile-trade/news-story/ad56f76fbe90f6538db21539b6f7d8c3. World Health Organization. (2020). WHO | Human organ transplantation. Who.int. Retrieved 18 February 2020, from https://www.who.int/transplantation/organ/en/. World Medical Association. (2019). WMA - The World Medical Association-WMA International Code of Medical Ethics. Wma.net. Retrieved 18 February 2020, from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-international-code-of-medical-ethics/. 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Finding Evidence By Dr. Thomas Skeen Introduction Section 2 of the English 105 course materials compared incorporating source material to a frame because the way in which a writer introduces and uses a source helps create a particular angle of understanding for the reader, much like a photograph that includes certain images while leaving other images out. The same principle applies to evidence generally. This section builds on that discussion because a writer must necessarily choose some evidence at the expense of other evidence, and also because using evidence is more about building a good case for an argument and creating an impression for readers than it is about reporting facts. This chapter explains how using evidence is an intellectual process that does not always lead to certainty or to “solid” arguments. The chapter begins with two scenarios that demonstrate this approach to evidence. It then moves to the relationship between writers and audiences and the role that evidence can play in that relationship, the need to “construct” a case by using evidence and to increase the adherence an audience has to a writer’s argument, and some frameworks that explain di erent types of evidence and how they might be used. The Nature of Evidence Scenario 1 The results of two scienti c studies are in con ict with each other. In the rst study, McAuley, Hopke, Zhao, and Babaian (2012) found "no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions" after taking into account the particular compounds found in e-cigarette vapor that the https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 1/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing study measured (p. 850). In the second study, researchers suggested that the pollutants contained in e-cigarette vapor "could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers" (Schober et al., 2014, p. 628). Before using these studies in a research paper, a writer would do well to answer questions like the following: What were the methodologies for both studies? Did researchers measure the same pollutants in each study? Why else might discrepancies between the two studies exist? Scenario 2 In a published academic journal article, child psychiatrist Andres Martin (2000) used qualitative evidence to convince his fellow psychiatrists to see tattoos as an opportunity to get to know their teenaged patients, rather than as an opportunity to assess the problems they are facing. Martin’s evidence contained no numbers—no statistics, no dollar amounts, and no measurable data. Rather, he used descriptions of two teenage boys, who were his patients at the time, and their descriptions of the tattoos they either had or were planning to get. Exercise 1 1. What is your initial reaction to Scenarios 1 and 2? 2. Would you be willing to use any of the studies cited in the scenarios in your own research writing? Why or why not? How Audiences Perceive Evidence In popular perceptions of academic writing, readers do not usually take kindly to ideas that come from the writer; they would rather see a set of evidence that, through careful scienti c investigation, leaves little room for question. In this view, facts are understood quite di erently from the way they are portrayed in the scenarios. The popular view is that facts are irrefutable, and those who hold this view might describe arguments as solid if they are supported by facts rather than opinions. While it is true that there are such things as facts, such as water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level, they are hardly arguable. If facts like these are all a researcher has to work with, there are only right and wrong answers, and the research with the real facts is right. At that point, there is no reason to continue with research and writing because there is not really anything to learn about or anyone to persuade. The aw with this perception is that it does not take into account the inherent instability of well-studied facts. As shown in Scenario 1, two careful studies that are trying to establish facts about vapor from ecigarettes have come to di erent conclusions. While scienti c evidence is very useful and provides many insights about the natural world, one should not describe it as “solid.” A person who relies on one of the e-cigarette studies would still be advancing an argument based on an opinion, albeit a well-informed one. https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 2/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Another impression that many people have is that numbers are reliable, and they certainly can be at times. Statisticians have complicated formulas to derive data from observations so that they can analyze them. There is a certain comfort in using numerical instruments to measure things. It gives one a sense of control. The tools one uses to represent numbers, whether resorting to the humble yardstick or a set of widely accepted statistical formulas that represent the highest standards of mathematical thinking, are instruments that are often external to parties in a debate. These are agreed-upon instruments that can provide important information about the phenomenon that was observed. However, with that explanatory power comes an almost seductive sense of security. Numbers can be represented in di erent ways to create di erent impressions. They may represent the same basic computation or idea, but they are also adjustable, allowing a writer to adapt them based on purpose and audience. In other words, numbers may seem like metrics that are independent of human judgment, but they are not. The National Highway Tra c Safety Administration (2008) released a fact sheet about driving and talking on a cell phone. It found that 6% of drivers used cell phones while driving in 2007, which translates to 1,005,000 vehicles during any given day (p. 1). At this point, a writer has a choice to make: either use the statistic or use the number that the statistic represents. An author who uses the statistic of 6% may convince an audience that the number of drivers who use cell phones while driving is low, whereas an author who uses the number of 1,005,000 may convince an audience that the number is high. Each number represents the same idea di erently. Lastly, there are important kinds of data that academic writers often take into consideration, even though they may not be driven by numbers. In the second scenario, Martin (2000) wished to persuade his colleagues that tattoos could be a valuable way to get to know a teenaged patient if that teen happens to have a tattoo or is planning to get one. To make that argument, Martin needed to demonstrate that a tattoo may hold important meanings for the teen, rather than frivolous ones. He could have conducted surveys of teenagers who have tattoos and then counted the responses to develop a number like “320 out of 350 (or 91.42% of) respondents say their tattoos have important meanings.” However, the persuasiveness of such data would be limited to their high quantity, and they would not allow the audience to get a glimpse of the lives of the teenagers with whom Martin worked. Instead, Martin chose to use qualitative evidence—not evidence that could be counted, but rather evidence that must be described—to support his view. His description of two patients and their tattoos had its own explanatory and persuasive power, which derives from an emphasis on the personal. He was able to provide his fellow psychiatrists with a glimpse into these teens’ lives, showing how one teenager memorialized his deceased father in the form of a tattoo, while the other had a tattoo of his baby daughter’s face. The description and the inherent meaning of the tattoos could not have been captured by numbers, and it provided Martin’s readers with something on which to dwell, perhaps https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 3/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing prompting them to remember some of their own patients. His examples of evidence resonated with his audience’s a nity for their patients and the sometimes di cult circumstances they may face, thus making Martin’s argument persuasive even though it did not rely on numbers. Exercise 2 There are at least two takeaways from Scenarios 1 and 2. One is that seemingly an academic writer may come across contradictory evidence. The other is that some research relies not on statistics, but on “soft” evidence such as personal stories. Based on these takeaways, answer the following: 1. For your current writing project, nd two pieces of evidence that appear to contradict each other. Why do the contradictions exist? Which piece would you choose for your paper, and why? 2. Find a source that relies on qualitative evidence for your current paper. How might that type of evidence work e ectively in your paper? Finding a Purpose for Evidence At this point, one might ask: “If there is so much wrong with facts and evidence, what is the use?” The previous examples and their explanations paint a picture of the potential fallibility of evidence; however, the problem is not the evidence. It can still be powerful. Rather than think about evidence as a set of facts to prove what is correct and incorrect, it is more fruitful to think in terms of what is persuasive and what is not, or what helps a writer present a best case and what does not. For example, consider the practice of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who often engaged in playful sparring with his law clerks (Ramage, 2006). “Holmes would enter the o ce each day and demand of them that they ‘State any proposition and I’ll deny it!’” (Ramage, 2006, p. 26). In asking such a question, Holmes was enlarging his own capacity to see various sides of an issue clearly and taking part in a “rhetorical conversation,” thus enabling him to “be in a position to make the best—most appropriate, most defensible—choice” (Ramage, 2006, p. 28) in the decisions he would have to make as a judge on the nation’s highest court. Similarly, one can think of evidence as a way to help build a best case given the circumstances surrounding an argument. Research writers can test evidence and evaluate its merits. One can try various pieces of evidence to support a point to see how well they t. After all, the purpose of argument is not to prove a claim beyond all shadow of a doubt—an impossible task if an audience consists of people who do not already agree with the writer—but rather to convince an audience to accept a point of view and, in some cases, act on it. A good practice is to nd evidence that supports a proposition and make the best case possible without being manipulative. https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 4/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing One can think of evidence as a way to help build a best case given the circumstances surrounding an argument. If the goal of using evidence is to build a best case, it follows that the use of evidence depends on the writer. As the two scenarios show, evidence does not exist in a realm of objectivity, coming into existence outside of human activities. Although evidence can be researched and tested with varying degrees of rigor, even the most rigorously tested evidence is still generated by a series of everyday decisions that scientists, child psychologists, marketing professors, journalists, and others make about the research they are conducting. On top of that, any research writer—from a college freshman to a world-renowned linguistics professor—must decide how to use a given piece of evidence in service of persuasive writing. Using evidence should be a matter of active decision making on the part of a writer, rather than a passive decision made to meet requirements for a certain number of sources in a writing assignment. Exercise 3 Find out the source requirement, if there is one, for a current paper in any course you are currently taking. Then do the following: 1. Find more than the required number of sources. For example: If an assignment requires ve sources, try nding seven or eight. 2. Evaluate the sources to decide which ones will help you make the best case for your argument without being manipulative. Which ones are the best, and why? 3. Discard those that will not help you make the best case. Importantly, the necessary process of decision making when using evidence leads to another point: A writer must not only make decisions about the quality or persuasiveness of evidence, but also must decide what evidence to include or omit. That, in turn, means that a writer uses evidence to guide a reader's attention to certain pieces of evidence and away from other potential pieces. This is part of the process explained by rhetorical theorists Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). They argue that a “theory of argumentation cannot be developed if every proof is conceived of as a reduction to the self-evident” (p. 4). In other words, one cannot begin to understand argument by thinking of it as a presentation of indisputable facts. Rather, they assert that one must think of argument as an attempt to gain the adherence of an audience—a term used to explain the degree of an audience's acceptance https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 5/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing of an argument (pp. 104-105). While some audiences may be highly convinced by a particular piece of evidence, others might not. Other audiences might fall somewhere in between. It is the job of the writer to select evidence that will help increase an audience's adherence to an idea. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) place a great deal of emphasis on the selection of evidence as a means to create presence for the audience. They explain that a variety of evidence, which they call data, is available to a speaker or writer to support an argument, but a given piece of evidence could be used in any number of ways. There is always a “preliminary selection of the elements that are to serve as a starting point of the argument,” as well as the need to “adapt” evidence to the arguments it is being used to support (p. 115). For further discussion of di erent types of evidence and how di erent audiences might perceive them, review this media piece on types of evidence. (http://lc.gcumedia.com/zwebassets/courseMaterialPages/eng102_hardEvidence.php#) Exercise 4 Think back to your original impression of evidence. What were your thoughts before you enrolled in English 106? How does your original understanding compare with the ideas that evidence is fallible and a writer must build a best case? Write your answers down and look for an opportunity to share them during class or in a response to a discussion question. Common Types of Evidence There are some well-established types of evidence on which academic researchers, college students, and others rely for evidence as they support their work. These types of evidence can appear in most any genre of academic writing. Quantitative evidence uses numbers to measure a given phenomenon. Some researchers and writers rely heavily on statistics, for example, which are a form of quantitative evidence. If evidence involves numbers, it is often quantitative. Qualitative evidence requires that the researcher interpret what he or she observes, and the observations often come from human subjects. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) de ned qualitative research this way: “Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials—case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meaning in individuals' lives” (p. 2). For example, a researcher might interview a variety of subjects, read through those interviews, and interpret them to report on the most important points that the interviews revealed. Researchers do not process data through statistics or other forms of mathematics when they use qualitative evidence. https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 6/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing There are some well-established types of evidence on which academic researchers, college students, and others rely for evidence as they support their work. Primary evidence is something that the researcher collects directly, such as an interview, a survey, or a questionnaire. It is primary because researchers conduct the research themselves by designing, distributing, and collecting it. Secondary evidence is evidence that a researcher or writer sees secondhand. It is often primary evidence that has been processed in some way. For example, while a survey is primary evidence, it becomes secondary evidence once its results have been published so that it can be used by other researchers. Consider a researcher who collected interviews, studied them, and then published the results in a book or an academic journal article; the published material would be secondary evidence. The original interviews are primary evidence. Expert testimony is used as evidence at times. This happens often in court cases in which lawyers will call expert witnesses to explain complex ideas that are important to the case. This also occurs in academic writing when one researcher cites the work of another researcher. For example, if a psychologist studies the link between video games and violence, and a writer quotes a statement from the psychologist which asserts that video games do not cause violence, the writer has used expert testimony as evidence. However, if a writer summarizes the particulars of the psychologist’s research, then the writer is reporting on the evidence more directly. Narratives, depending on the audience of an argument and the genre in which an argument is expressed, are acceptable to use as an explanation of a sequence of events as evidence. For example, if a writer is making an argument about the cause of school shootings, he or she might refer to news sources to explain the story of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Independent reasoning entails an author using his or her own independent reasoning as evidence to support an argument. For example, in a court case, a judge might use a hypothetical scenario to provide examples that support a judgment. For an additional list of types of evidence used in academic arguments, review this media piece. (http://lc.gcumedia.com/zwebassets/courseMaterialPages/eng102_evidence.php#) Exercise 5 https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 7/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Create an acrostic that helps you remember the several types of evidence. An acrostic is a phrase in which the rst letter of every item on a list is used to create a memorable sentence, thus making a list easier to remember. For example, to teach the list kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, a science teacher might have students create a silly phrase that uses the rst letter of each item on the list to help them remember the real items on the list. Given the rst letters KPCOFGS, students might create a phrase like “Kelly prefers cheese over fresh green strawberries.” The types of evidence are quantitative, qualitative, primary, secondary, expert testimony, narratives, and independent reasoning. The rst letters of the types of evidence are QQPSENI. What phrase could you develop that helps you remember that sequence? Using Evidence to Create Strong Arguments: GASCAP As shown in Scenarios 1 and 2, much of the evidence one encounters does not provide certain conclusions, but only probable ones. This is how Richard Fulkerson (1996) characterized evidence when he described a common classi cation system called GASCAP: generalization, analogy, sign, cause, authority, and principle. The GASCAP framework helps researchers understand how di erent types of data can support a claim. This section explains the elements of the GASCAP model as Fulkerson did, provides examples for each, and o ers learners the opportunity to look for each type of evidence in arguments they may be reading or writing. The GASCAP framework helps researchers understand how different types of data can support a claim Evidence for a Generalization As Fulkerson (1996) explains, an argument from generalization has to do with coming to a conclusion on the basis of a limited number of examples or experiences. For example, to make a generalization about how sour the oranges from a particular tree taste, one must rely on the taste of a limited number of oranges. The number of sampled oranges will help determine how persuasive the evidence is. If one makes the generalization after tasting ve oranges, the generalization would not likely be persuasive. If one makes the generalization after tasting 45 oranges, the generalization would be much more believable. Evidence from Analogy https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 8/12 gy 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Arguments from analogy compare two cases or situations (Fulkerson, 1996). These types of analogies are often used in elds such as law and economics, although they are by no means the only elds that use such arguments. In law, an argument in a court case may rely on similar cases from the past to convince the judge that the newer case requires the same ruling as the previous ones, using details from the previous case as a type of evidence. In economics, the Great Recession sometimes is compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s, using evidence about economic trends, the unemployment rate, or other economic evidence. Evidence based on analogies can be used to argue that two things are similar, that they are dissimilar, or that they are somewhere in between, depending on the person’s perspective. Evidence from a Sign Fulkerson (1996) describes evidence from a sign as evidence that is taken to mean something is true although it is not directly observable. He explained that one uses this type of evidence "whenever the matter at issue is a question of fact but not directly observable" (p. 32). Another way to state this is when something cannot be observed directly, one uses external clues as evidence. For example, symptoms of illnesses are signs. A doctor may conclude that a patient has a common u if the patient has the appropriate symptoms, such as a fever and a sore throat. However, the doctor is not observing the u virus directly, and the u has symptoms in common with other illnesses. Evidence for Cause and E ect In many cases, a writer may use cause and e ect to support an argument. Consider the claim British politician Chris Brew is made that feeding children fast food is child abuse (BBC News, 2012). Although that line of reasoning is not an argument about cause and e ect, one could take that argument further by nding evidence about how eating fast food can cause harm to children. Authority Because evidence can sometimes be complex, writers sometimes must rely on the authority of experts instead of other types of sources (Fulkerson, 1996). For example, if one writes a paper about a complex mental illness, such as postpartum depression, one might rely on statements from authoritative scholars about the causes of the illness, rather than complex studies that try to demonstrate the causes of the illness itself. Principle Sometimes writers refer to a principle (or assume one) when making an argument. Principles derive from values that certain groups of people may hold. For example, if a writer argues against eating meat, he or she may support the argument by explaining the principle that all life is sacred and valuable. Exercise 6 https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 9/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Out of all of the approaches to evidence presented in this section, which ones do you think are the most convincing? The least convincing? Why? Consider the evidence you have collected for a current writing project. According to the types of evidence described in this chapter, what kind of evidence is it? Under which circumstances might some of the types of evidence be combined? For example, from a patient's perspective, a doctor's diagnosis might constitute two types of evidence: evidence from authority and evidence from a sign. Prepare your answer to this question and share it in a current or future class discussion. Conclusion This chapter covered a variety of ideas about evidence by demonstrating how evidence is not always de nitive in argumentation, explaining that one should approach an argument building a best case, de ning several types of evidence, and sharing the GASCAP framework (which shows how evidence might be used to support a claim). Exercise 7 (http://gcumedia.com/mediaElements/grand-canyon-university-test-engine/v1.1/#/test/75) Key Terms Adherence: The degree of belief an audience might be willing to grant an argument; while some audiences might be thoroughly convinced, members of other audiences might only change their minds slightly after hearing an argument. Evidence: Support for an argument. Evidence is something that writers not only nd, but also construct for their audiences. That is, writers must necessarily make choices about how to characterize their evidence, as well as what evidence to include or omit. Types of evidence available to writers and researchers vary widely. Expert Testimony: This type of evidence comes from quoting or paraphrasing what an expert has said, rather than summarizing or paraphrasing the evidence itself. In that sense, it is sometimes an indirect way of using evidence. GASCAP: A framework for articulating di erent ways in which evidence might be used in an argument. It stands for generalization, analogy, sign, cause, authority, and principle. Independent Reasoning: A type of evidence in which a writer uses her own reasoning in support of a claim, but without reference to outside sources. This may include a hypothetical example or a direct observation. Narratives: An explanation of a sequence of events. In persuasive writing, an author might use a news story that explains an event as part of an argument. Primary Evidence: Evidence that a researcher collects directly, including interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and lab reports. Qualitative Evidence: A type of evidence in which a researcher interprets empirical, observational data. https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 10/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing Quantitative Evidence: Evidence based on data that can be quanti ed (counted). Statistics are a form of quantitative evidence. Secondary Evidence: Primary evidence that has been processed and presented through interpretation and publication. Questions for Re ection 1. What was the most surprising idea from this chapter? 2. Which point was muddiest? Why? References BBC News. (2012, September 24). Giving children fast food is abuse, says councillor. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19701051 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Martin, A. (2000). On teenagers and tattoos. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 9(3), 143-144, 150. McAuley, T. R., Hopke, P. K., Zhao, J., & Babaian, S. (2012). Comparison of the e ects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality. Inhalation Toxicology, 24(12), 850-857. National Highway Tra c Safety Administration. (2008). Tra c safety facts. (DOT HS 810 963). Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Retrieved from http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810963.PDF Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969) The new rhetoric. (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958). Ramage, J. (2006). Rhetoric: A user’s guide. New York, NY: Pearson/Longman. Schober, W., Szendrei, K., Matzen, W., Osiander-Fuchs, H., Heitmann, D. Schettgen, T., Jorres, R. A., & Fromme, H. (2014). Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217(6), 628-637. https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 11/12 2/28/2020 Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing GCU.EDU (https://www.gcu.edu) GLOSSARY https://lc.gcumedia.com/eng106/finding-purpose-through-argumentative-writing/v1.1/#/chapter/2 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES 12/12
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

The work is finally here. Have a look at it. I am available for any correction. Hope you will invite me for more quality work. Thank you very much.

USE OF EVIDENCE

1

Use of Evidence
Institution Affiliation
Student Name

USE OF EVIDENCE

2
Use of Evidence

The two types of evidence in the essay are secondary and quantitative evidence. There
are 10 000 cases of organ transplants in a year. This number implies quantitative evidence.
Besides, the author uses secondary evidence in the e...


Anonymous
Great content here. Definitely a returning customer.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags