An argument is described as, “an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.” Arguments are used in everyday life in order to prove points. There has been heated debates on whether or not liver transplants should be given to alcoholics. Many may say that Alcoholics shouldn’t be able to get transplants due to alcoholism being a choice. Well Cohen completely disagrees. He makes many valid points that just because someone is an alcoholic doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to get any transplants!
Throughout Cohen’s article he argues the fact that basically anyone even an alcoholic should be able to receive organ transplants. In the start of the article Cohens approach to explain his point is very interesting. He starts off his thesis stating that, “Alcoholic Cirrhosis of the liver-severe scarring is by far the major cause of end-stage liver disease.” I feel that what he is doing is understanding the problem. He is more stating
…show more content…
the opposite argument and then he will break it down to how it is wrong. Throughout his argument he seems to understand that Alcoholism is indeed bad, but he then starts to argue that even they should have the right to an organ transplant. The moral argument that he brings up is also more of a definition of what people see as wrong. Being morally wrong and being morally right is not just some rule. Many people have their own morals is what Cohen is really getting at. He even stated in the Article that, “But there is absolutely no agreement- and there is likely to be none- about what constitutes moral virtue and vice and what rewards and penalties they deserve.” He described his thesis well to the point he broke it down and then argued in its favor. He was also very creative starting off on the opposite end of the argument stating that problem of alcoholism and its affects to the liver. Another way of arguing he brings is self-inflicted towards others. What I mean by this is that he literally says that, “If Alcoholics should be penalized because of their moral fault, then all others who are equally at fault in causing their own medical needs should be similarly penalized.” This argument that he made literally throws it right back into people’s face to show them how much of a hypocrite they sound. Cohen even breaks it down medically so that he can get his argument across.
In the medical section he disagree with the argument that, “because alcoholics do poorly after transplant as a result of their bad habits, good stewardships of organs in a short supply requires that alcoholics be excluded from consideration.” Cohen literally breaks this argument down in two points. He claims that the argument above is false and then he goes on to say that even if they are correct that they should also exclude people who damage their organs in other ways. He bashes the fact that alcoholics are excluded by putting other people’s bad habits in the argument. This is very creative and it does go out of the way in order for him to prove his point. His kind of points fingers at others as if to say, “You’re doing bad as well why you don’t get punished for your actions?” This argument is also creative, because it points the finger and shows that other people are also doing wrong but aren’t considered bad for
it. The ending argument was basically Cohen gathering up everyone’s doubts about his argument and making sure they didn’t have those doubts. He basically said that he understands that an alcoholic with a new liver could be a double edge sword. Cohen literally ended the argument confidently by stating that’ “we have argued that there is no good reason medically or morally, to preclude alcoholics categorically from consideration for liver transplantation.” This is brilliant to me, for the simple fact he is saying that everything that you once doubted has turned to a different side. His arguments was based constructed in three ways, describing the problem, giving the definition of the situation, and last giving the facts and real life examples to the problem. This way of the argument I really found interesting by how he picked the problem and broke it down.
In order for this to be an argument, there needs to be a premise and conclusion. The premise of this statement is that the Nazis can’t be stopped when people are just letting them get away with murdering countless minority groups. Furthermore, Arvid’s conclusion is that we should all fight against the Nazis. This
When it comes to education, everyone has their own opinion on what should be taught, how things should be taught, and what should be fair within the different levels of education. I have personally seen many posts on Facebook from my family members that live in differing areas, which are truly the opposite sides of this nation, and there have been quite a lot of separate views. Family members from New England, in particular, are generally more conservative and wish for there to be more patriotism in schools, such as making it mandatory to stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance. Those from the west coast, who tend to have liberal views, hope that college tuition will be able to be free of cost. Different areas of origin as well as one’s parents
Summary – In an argument you are attempting in persuasion to change the audience’s mood, mind or their willingness to act. In a fight you are focused on beating your opponent rather than winning over the audience. It is important when in the midst of an argument you know exactly what you want by the end of it.
Arguments are everywhere; everyone has used some sort of argumentation in their life. Whether it’s asking permission to go out, begging a professor for additional time on a due assignment, or arriving late to class. Your examining different evidence to decide which way is more dependable to use to make our stateluisament or an argument. In other words, an Argument is a sequence of statements that are used to persuade an audience with reasons for accommodating a conclusion. Creating arguments is something that isn’t hard to do, what is hard to grip on is, finding the logic in an argument. I found myself creating similar scenarios; pretty much made three comparable settings that all fight for the same point.
In “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, the focal point of chapter 17 was an issue for decades and was not enforced after Civil Rights Acts were passed and that was the inequality amongst the blacks and whites through slavery and segregation. It also gave an insight to how African Americans felt through these times and how they began to express themselves through blues, jazz, and poems. Blues were known to have expressions of anger as opposed to jazz that was rebellious. The thoughts of African American poems were often masked, but had a very significant meaning. Through the event where “President Truman in late 1946 appointed a Committee on Civil Rights, which recommended that the civil rights section of the Department
In this passage, the audience truly sees the meaning behind Herbert Kohl's message. His purpose for writing comes back to the fact that people interpret situations differently in every way. Kohl not only wanted to highlight the purpose behind wanting to learn something new but he also wanted readers to be aware that most time it does not come down to the inability of someone who doesn't want to learn but the real reason behind why they don't want to. People have different opinions on topics such as these but Kohl wanted to show that being able to want to stand up for your culture and the meanings behind it are rather important. Behind Kohl's purpose for writing, we see an insight into his past life relating to Wilfredo's. Kohl's reason for
Arguments can be made out of just about anything. An argument has two sides, and conveying an opinion is one of those two sides. Arguments sort out the views of others and the support of those arguments represented by those people from past events. These events let others show their argument about what will happen in the future, and of how the future carries on today. Newspaper articles can be arguments, and laws being passed in Congress have a form of argument associated with them. There are many types of arguments that are presented in many ways. In Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, information is given about three specific types of argument: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Forensic arguments deal with the past, deliberative talks about the future, and ceremonial is all about the present. I have identified each of these arguments in the form of newspaper articles.
In May of 1776 a resolution was passed at the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg that asked the thirteen American colonies to declare the United Colonies free and independent from the British crown. At the second continental congress the resolution passed and on June 11, 1776 a five-man committee led by Thomas Jefferson was established to write the Declaration of Independence. On July 4, 1776 the members of the second continental congress signed into existence one of the most influential documents in history.
Jonathan Pease is the President & founder of Rock Solid Stabilization & Reclamation, Inc. one of the industry leaders in soil stabilization and road reclamation in the country.
Jake Olson is a blind long snapper for the University of Southern California Trojans. Jake was given a rare form of retinal cancer that took his sight as a child. Jake lost his left eye when he was 10 months old. The cancer forced doctors to remove his right eye when he was 12 years old. Playing for USC has been a lifelong dream for Jake and he never gave up that dream even after he became blind.
Making a good and persuasive argument is very much an acquired skill. It requires much practice and perfecting. It takes more than just having passion and making good points. Just because a person is passionate about the topic or has supporting details does not mean they can make a successful argument. Much more thought and skill is required. Gordon Adams, in his letter to the Arizona State University standards committee, demonstrates this quite well. Gordon Adams writes a passionate argument, yet his argument lacks several critical aspects.
The usage of strategies in my interpretation statement was how Rushkoff used methods of persuasion, fear, and the aim of cognitive approach to show that looking toward the future was more beneficial than the present. The strategy I have used on writing this paper was connecting emotional feelings to readers and insert hesitations of their situation by texts that could associate with them. Before, my statement was about how Rushkoff used logical reasoning to prove his claim. Now, is a new thesis, “Throughout the article, he uses examples that people in modern society would be able to connect to through strategies of pathos, ethos and a cognitive angle. As an additional supportive strategy Rushkoff did, he establishes fear in certain types of
Argument (P. 88) – The point of an argument is to convince someone through using truth or logic, also known as logos: facts, evidence, reliable testimonies, common sense and determining probability. This does not require the presence of an opposing force to ague. If I were to write a paper on television being the leading cause for poor vision, that would be an argument.
To argue is to attempt to convince a reader to agree with a point of view, to make a decision, or to pursue a particular course of action (Eschholz, Rosa, and Clark 429). In an argument there are three main elements: ethos, logos, and pathos. In ethos, the author tries to build his/her character to the audience. In this particular essay, Mr. Keillor does not build his credibility very well. The only information he reveals is that he is a democrat, which can be found in paragraph one of the essay. The details of Mr.
Most people aren’t familiar with ways our government is trying to lower health care costs of the homeless by putting them in houses, here is their chance to learn. “Housing First” approaches are aimed at reducing the number of homeless people in metropolitan cities, especially in USA and Canada. In Tulsa, the Mental Health Association operates housing models that are successful using the Housing First approach, but only with a success rate of around nine percent. These programs are able to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Special consideration is given to people who have mental illnesses. The main advantage of the approach is it makes an efficient use of the existing systems and services, and then eliminates the need for new ones. The approach has been said to lead to better quality of life, less alcohol and substance use among the beneficiaries, and less use of emergency services by the beneficiaries. Despite all of the advantages and purposes, the program has many challenges that make one think it’s not as successful as first projected. This could lead to program loss or the challenges being dealt with appropriately. If the government wants to use money to help end homelessness, they should put it towards resources and organizations that can, not towards homes where the homeless go to be ignored.