Andrea does a good job addressing opposing view points. She takes into consideration both sides of her argument and provides supporting evidence of why she believes flu shots shouldn't be mandatory as well as why they were established in the first place. She provides statistical evidence of how many studies have proved the flu shots ineffectiveness.
Andrea provides an outstanding summary of what her intent will be throughout the essay, she says where she will obtain her source and how will they support her argument. I would like to add some input to the audience portion.
"The audience is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for Disease Control (CDC), and healthcare agencies. This audience is particularly challenging for a variety of reasons. They have firm belief in Healthy People 2020 and it will be extremely challenging to change this. They have already spent an extreme amount of time and effort towards mandatory vaccination. They are also promoting and enforcing this based on patient and public safety. They are also not inherently wrong about mandatory vaccination being safer for patients and appreciate that this is their main argument." Here I would like to know: Why is the flu vaccine a mistake? What would they get out of not enforcing a mandatory flu vaccine as a condition of employment? The audience always needs to feel like by changing their ways there will be some kind of advantage and I am just a little lost on how they will benefit if they are persuaded by the argument. Andrea's sources are peer reviewed and retrieved from reliable sources. They mostly come from the SNHU website and were published by professionals of the healthcare field. Moreover, the studies mentioned have been officially published and peer reviewed, which adds to the adequacy and credentialing of her sources. Andrea does a great job summarizing all her resources. The summary for source 2 is fantastically written. Without reading the article or researching the legal case it addresses, I feel like I still understand its point and intent. It is when we get to the intended argument that she is trying to merge with that source that perhaps could use a little more depth. Below is the original writing: "Personally, I believe the source is doing a good job of supporting its arguments because they are not only passionate about their opinion, but they bring up statistics and court cases to persuade their point. My problem is forcing HCWs to receive a vaccine that they do not want to receive.This is my intended argument: HCWs should not be mandated to receive the flu vaccine as a condition of employment." (This intended argument was already used for source number 1). Does she have another argument that this article could be tied up to? I understand that it supports the main topic, but how can she tie this to a subtopic of her main point? Perhaps she could try associating this supportive evidence to one of the key-points she previously mentioned. As her audience, I believe that her intended argument for …show more content…
by Barbara Loe Fisher " I find to be the strongest. It covers pretty much everything Andrea is presenting. It provides statistical evidence that reinforces her argument. Particularly where it says "80% of all flu-like illness reported during the flu season is not caused by the flu, but rather other viruses. " I personally, wasn't aware of that fact. Now I wonder how many time I haven't actually had the flu. The source also mentions ways to avoid contracting influenza even without the shot. My personal favorite, however, is where it states "Unknown whether mass use of influenza vaccine from birth to death by all Americans will influence more virulent strains, which has happened with other