Assignment 11: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part I Pr 750054

Assignment 11 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part Iprewritingwhen Lo

Follow the instructions below for this prewriting activity. Use complete sentences and adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling. 1. Select one (1) of the approved topics from the Website and state your position on the issue. 2. From the Procon.org Website, identify three (3) premises (reasons) listed under either the Pro or Con section - whichever section opposes your position. 3. For each of the three (3) premises (reasons) that oppose your position on the issue, answer these "believing" questions suggested by Elbow: What's interesting or helpful about this view? What would I notice if I believed this view? In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph. Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student's name, the professor's name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language. Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking. Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

Paper For Above instruction

The practice of engaging with opposing viewpoints is essential for developing critical thinking skills and fostering a balanced perspective on complex issues. This prewriting activity invites us to explore these opposing views through a structured approach that encourages empathy and understanding, aligning with the principles outlined by Elbow in "The Believing Game." In this context, I will select a controversial topic from Procon.org, articulate my stance, and analyze three reasons provided by the opposition, contemplating what is valuable and true about their arguments.

For this exercise, I have chosen the topic of mandatory vaccination policies. My position is that vaccination should remain voluntary, respecting individual choice and personal freedom. The opposing side, however, argues that vaccination should be mandated to protect public health. From their perspective, three premises against voluntariness include: (1) Vaccinations prevent the spread of infectious diseases, thereby protecting vulnerable populations; (2) Herd immunity relies on high vaccination rates; and (3) Unvaccinated individuals pose a significant risk to community health. These premises emphasize the importance of collective safety and disease eradication efforts.

Applying Elbow's "Believing Game," I examine each premise thoughtfully. Regarding the first premise—that vaccinations prevent the spread of infectious diseases—I find it interesting because it underscores the success of vaccination programs historically in reducing disease prevalence. If I believed this view, I would notice the tangible evidence of disease decline in communities with high vaccination rates. Under certain conditions, such as outbreaks or in vulnerable populations, I might recognize the necessity of vaccination to protect public health, acknowledging its factual basis in scientific research (Larson et al., 2016).

The second premise about herd immunity being dependent on high vaccination coverage also warrants reflection. I notice that achieving herd immunity is a collective effort, which fosters a sense of community responsibility. Believing in this premise, I would see the importance of widespread vaccination in preventing outbreaks and protecting those unable to be vaccinated due to health issues. It is true under the condition that vaccines provide effective community protection, as demonstrated in epidemiological studies (Fine et al., 2011).

The third premise—that unvaccinated individuals pose a risk to others—raises ethical and social considerations. If I believed this, I would recognize how individual choices impact public health and the importance of safeguarding vulnerable populations. Such risk associations have been documented, especially during outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles (Patel et al., 2019). Under critical conditions, I might acknowledge that some personal exemptions can complicate these protective effects, though debating the limits of individual autonomy versus community safety remains crucial.

Overall, engaging with these opposing premises through the lens of the "Believing Game" enables me to appreciate the validity and context of justifications behind mandated vaccination policies. While I maintain that personal choice is vital, recognizing the compelling reasons for public health measures deepens my understanding. This exercise highlights the importance of critical engagement with conflicting viewpoints, encouraging open-mindedness and nuanced thinking that are essential in democratic discourse.

References

• Fine, P., Eames, K., & Heymann, D. L. (2011). "Herd immunity": A rough guide. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 52(7), 911-916. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir007
• Larson, H. J., Jarrett, C., Eckersberger, E., Smith, D. M., & Paterson, P. (2016). Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: A systematic review. Vaccine, 34(17), 2010-2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.047
• Patel, M., Lee, A. D., Redd, S. B., Clemmons, N., & Paddock, C. D. (2019). National update on measles cases and outbreaks—United States, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(45), 1022–1026. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6845a1