Discussion Board 1: Rhetorical Analysis Rubric Criteria Leve

Discussion Board 1 Rhetorical Analysis Rubriccriterialevels Of Achieve

Analyze a professional or scholarly article, focusing on its rhetorical situation, the author's means of persuasion, and rhetorical strategies used. Provide a clear assessment of the author's strengths and weaknesses.

Respond to a classmate's post with a clear statement of agreement and/or disagreement, including explanations of likes and dislikes and additional or alternative ideas.

Ensure that your initial post and response meet all stated requirements, including length, format (MLA/APA/Turabian), and proper citations.

Paper For Above instruction

The provided assignment instructions require a comprehensive rhetorical analysis of a scholarly article, which in this case examines the controversies surrounding the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents. The article by Soraya Seedat explores the complex debate about the safety and efficacy of antidepressants, particularly SSRIs, in young populations, amidst regulatory warnings, clinical trial data, and real-world outcomes. Analyzing these elements can reveal how the author constructs her argument, the strategies used to persuade different audiences, and any underlying biases or limitations.

In conducting a rhetorical analysis, one must first understand the article's rhetorical situation, which includes the purpose, audience, and context. Seedat's purpose appears to be to inform and persuade clinicians, policymakers, and the public about the nuanced reality of antidepressant use in youth, emphasizing that despite controversies, the benefits may outweigh risks when proper monitoring is in place. The audience includes mental health professionals, researchers, and possibly informed laypersons interested in mental health issues.

Seedat employs a balanced approach, citing clinical trials, meta-analyses, regulatory agencies, and epidemiological data to construct a comprehensive picture. Her use of authoritative sources, including FDA statements and large-scale studies like TADS, adds credibility. The logical flow from historical concerns, regulatory responses, to current evidence allows her to build an argument that is nuanced rather than sensational. This appeals to logos (logic) and ethos (credibility), establishing her as a knowledgeable expert.

Rhetorically, Seedat employs a tone of cautious optimism. She acknowledges past fears regarding antidepressants, particularly the increased suicidality risk flagged in 2003 and the subsequent black box warning. However, she counters this with evidence indicating that recent data shows no such suicides recorded in clinical trials and that the benefits of treating moderate to severe depression with fluoxetine and other SSRIs are significant when carefully monitored. Her calling for routine monitoring and emphasizing the importance of combined therapy and sustained treatment highlights a pragmatic, balanced stance aimed at reducing stigma and encouraging appropriate use.

In exploring her rhetorical strategies further, Seedat uses ethos effectively by referencing authoritative organizations and large-scale studies, which bolster her credibility. She appeals to pathos indirectly by discussing the devastating consequences of untreated depression and the importance of timely intervention, which resonates emotionally with readers aware of the risks of adolescent suicide. Her avoidance of alarmist language and presentation of evidence-based conclusions foster trust and persuade readers to consider a balanced, informed perspective.

Despite her strengths, the article displays some weaknesses. For example, her reliance on statistical data and clinical trial results may not fully account for real-world clinical variability, including socioeconomic factors and patient diversity. Additionally, while she calls for close monitoring, she does not delve deeply into practical barriers to implementation, such as resource limitations in low-income settings, which could influence treatment outcomes. Furthermore, her advocacy for continued research, while responsible, may appear somewhat cautious, potentially underplaying the urgency of reforming prescribing practices or current guidelines where controversies persist.

Her overall rhetorical effectiveness is enhanced by her balanced presentation and inclusion of multiple perspectives, but a more explicit acknowledgment of counterarguments or alternative viewpoints could strengthen her position. For instance, addressing how to improve the quality of mental health services or regulatory policies could make her analysis more comprehensive.

Matching her analysis to the assignment criteria, her argument demonstrates a strong understanding of rhetorical situation and strategies, with clear strengths but some areas for elaboration. Her approach exemplifies the effective use of evidence and tone suited to her audience, making her analysis persuasive and credible.

References

• Bridge, J. A., Iyengar, S., Salary, C. B., Barbe, R. P., Birmaher, B., Pincus, H. A., ... & Brent, D. A. (2007). Clinical response and risk for reported suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in pediatric antidepressant treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(15), 1683-1696.
• Isacsson, G., & Ahlner, J. (2014). Antidepressants and the risk of suicide in young persons—prescription trends and toxicological analyses. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 129(4), 296-302.
• March, J., Silva, S., Petrycki, S., Curry, J., Wells, K., Fairbank, J., ... & Severe, J. (2004). Fluoxetine, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and their combination for adolescents with depression: Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS) randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(7), 807-820.
• Soutullo, C., & Figueroa-Quintana, A. (2013). When do you prescribe antidepressants to depressed children? Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(4), 366-373.
• Seedat, S. (2014). Controversies in the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents: A decade since the storm and where do we stand now? Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 26(2), iii-v.
• FDA. (2004). Report on antidepressant use and suicidality risk in youth. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• Horgan, C., et al. (2010). Treatment approaches for pediatric depression. Pediatric Drugs, 12(2), 85-94.
• Plener, P. L., et al. (2014). The epidemiology of adolescent depression: A systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(3), 117-127.
• Rapee, R. M., et al. (2010). Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 13(4), 376-397.
• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(2), 1-112.