Using Critical Thinking to Analyze Written Materials
In the article (O’Meara, 2003), Kelly forwards that vaccines may cause autism among children. He argues that vaccines that contain a high level of mercury may surge autism in children, as had been noted in the United States. The paper points out some vaccines, such as antibiotics, aluminum salts, and methanol. It is noted that live viruses have unknown elements of traces that led to autism. Kelly states that the components that are responsible for the increased number of autism incidences among the children. Even though the article highlights various elements of vaccines that may cause autism, few errors can be noted in the article. First, at some point, the author forwards his opinion without facts. For example, the statistics provided in 2002 states that many cases of autism were a result of vaccines. The statistics are not supported by facts and prove from any recognized medical institutions. There is also the error of appeal to ignorance. In this case, the article does not have enough supportive evidence to prove points beyond doubts. In conclusion, it is not easy to take a side in the matter. It isn’t straightforward to understand whether the author is supporting the idea or disagreeing. Because there is not sufficient evidence to support some of his arguments. I agree with the first argument that vaccines with a high content of mercury may result in autism. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Kelly’s article also has an error of false analogy whereby his arguments are misleading in one aspect. The author does not provide the level of mercury that can cause autism. By arguing from the autism statistics drawn from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, the author does not provide a clear link between vaccines and thimerosal-containing containing harmful elements. The paper is a comprehensive one but lacks academic references that would give support. However, the proposers have not scientifically proved the content of mercury-based preservative that would cause autism. This presents a fallacy of disjunctive form. I think that the idea should be proven through a series of research before conclusions. Another error evident in the article is division fallacy. In this case, the author thinks that members of the same group have the same characteristics. In conducting vaccinations, it cannot be assumed that all would be affected by the mercury. This creates some aspects of golden mean fallacy and appeals to ignorance. This is because there is not sufficient evidence to support some of his arguments. I agree with the first argument that vaccines with a high content of mercury may result in autism. Even though the author is biased on his evidence to support the argument, there is a point worth examining.
Lithwick, in his article, analyses the Supreme Court decision to justify high school urine tests. In the paper, the author examines around five cases that made the entire country perceive high school more like a prison. The article is very comprehensive because it entails various situations that contribute to its rich content. It highlights different cases involving urinalysis. It is credible based on the arguments drawn from many court cases such as the board of education of Pottawatomie County versus Earls and Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (Lithwick, 2002). The author’s arguments are based on facts provided by the court in the cases. However, this paper has several errors, such as the fallacy of the disjunctive form. It lacks logical presentations of issues from court cases; instead, it heavily relies on the writer’s point of view. Lithwick would have provided more examples of instances of urinalysis to show a broader perspective. Of interest is that the author does not conclude by his view about urine.
Walden University (n.d.) noted that another error evident in the article is division fallacy. In this case, the author thinks that members of the same group have the same characteristics. In conducting urinalysis, it cannot be assumed that all schools would resist urinalysis. This creates some aspects of golden mean fallacy and appeals to ignorance. This is because there is not sufficient evidence to support some of his arguments. He ought to have concluded by stating what he thinks about conducting urinalysis in schools. Despite the errors noted in the paper, it has various strengths that make it more useful in academic research. It is authored by credible and renowned individuals and contains facts and views from one of the superior courts, which is the Supreme Court. The paper is also current with trending viewpoints about urinalysis in the country. It, therefore, provides a complete and comprehensive analysis of the perception of urine.