They did not make a good argument regarding other ways music can harm health. The journals did not mention any other specific ways that music can harm health other than hearing impairment, which makes the argument weaker. They provided evidence and a case study that supported their chosen side of the argument. The main problem with the journal research of Fleming is the research that proved people’s hearing is impaired when listening to music for long periods of time and at certain levels did not specify at what rate hearing would be lost. The study also did not specify for how long and at what level of sound the music would have to be listened to in order to start loss of hearing. The journal of Vogel et al. has a stronger argument because he presented statistics that showed at what decibel level a person’s hearing becomes impaired. This made the argument stronger because there are facts that music harms hearing. If the journals presented more ways in which music can harm health, their arguments would have been …show more content…
The article states that music festivals provide an environment for people to be who they want to be and are able to break out of their shell. The main claim in the article, The benefits of self-selected music on health and well-being by Kari Bjerke Batt-Rawden, an Associate Professor of the Department of Health, Technology and Society Faculty of Health, Care and Nursing is that music can help someone who is ill cope with their illness. This author is reliable because her credentials show that she has knowledge about human health. The study in this article suggests that people who are ill and chose the music they wanted to listen to, were better coping with their illness and used music as an exemplar of where they hoped to be health wise in the future