In The Argument Chapter You Learned About Expressed Argument

In The Argument Chapter You Learned About Expressed Arguments Ov

In the argument chapter, you learned about expressed arguments (overt arguments attempting to persuade the audience towards a point of view) and implied arguments (arguments that appear on the surface not to be arguments but actually seek to persuade the audience of a point of view or views). For this DQ, provide a specific example from the media of an expressed argument and an implied argument and answer the following questions: What is the expressed argument you identified? What specific argument does the author make? What evidence does the author use to support his or her claims? What is the implied argument you identified? What specific argument does the author make? What evidence does the author use to support his or her claims? Why is it important to understand expressed and implied arguments? How might you use your understanding of expressed and implied arguments when drafting your first essay in this course? Additionally, read “Legalizing the Organ Trade” by Ritter and consider how terms like “meaningful compensation” influence arguments about organ trade ethics. Think about why writers don’t spend much time on opposing viewpoints and how concessions can affect the main claim. Reflect on ethical considerations about organ sales, explore evidence sources, and analyze cause-and-effect chains related to organ trade. Develop ideas for a proposal addressing the sale of organs, considering skeptical audiences and fallacies in arguments, and outline strategies for effective proposal writing. Cite all sources used.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis of arguments presented both explicitly and implicitly in media texts is crucial for understanding persuasion techniques and the construction of rhetoric. An expressed argument is a clear, overt statement intended to persuade, while an implied argument is subtle, often embedded within the language or visuals, seeking to influence audiences indirectly.

For example, a public health advertisement claiming “Vaccines Save Lives” clearly states an expressed argument advocating vaccination. The author supports this assertion by citing statistical data on disease reduction and testimonials from vaccinated individuals, emphasizing the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Conversely, a newspaper editorial with images of distressed children and a caption suggesting “Our Future Depends on Protecting Our Children” makes an implied argument that neglecting health measures jeopardizes the future generation. Although less direct, the evidence—such as images and emotionally charged language—serves to persuade without overtly stating the assumption that failure to act will be detrimental to children.

Understanding the distinctions between expressed and implied arguments enables critical analysis of persuasive texts, revealing underlying assumptions and potential biases. This awareness is particularly useful when composing academic essays, as it informs how to construct balanced, nuanced arguments that acknowledge opposing viewpoints without neglecting the core issue. When drafting your first essay, recognizing embedded implications helps to craft compelling evidence and anticipate counterarguments.

Shifting focus to the ethical debate on organ trade, Ritter's discussion on “meaningful compensation” exemplifies how language shapes argumentation. The term “meaningful” suggests a value-laden threshold, prompting debate over what constitutes fair remuneration—especially when the donor is impoverished and the recipient wealthy. For instance, providing a payment that covers medical expenses might be seen as meaningful, but offering substantial financial gain might spark ethical concerns about exploitation.

Other related terms suitable for defining and debating include “fair compensation,” “coercion,” “exploitation,” and “regulation,” each framing the issue differently and influencing the arguments surrounding organ sales. Recognizing why writers minimize the discussion of opposing viewpoints—often to strengthen their position—helps in constructing balanced essays. Introducing concessions, for example, acknowledging valid concerns about exploitation, can bolster credibility and persuade undecided audiences, provided these concessions are followed by refutations or mitigations that reinforce the main thesis.

In examining Dr. Francis Delmonico’s position on organ sales—particularly his assertion that even regulated trade might be exploitative—it is important to analyze the evidence supporting this viewpoint. Documented cases of impoverished donors receiving inadequate compensation underscore potential exploitation, especially for vulnerable populations. Conversely, some argue that regulated trade, with strict oversight, could reduce illicit black market activities and save lives.

If the term “exploitative” is defined as taking unfair advantage of vulnerable individuals for personal gain without regard for their well-being, then allowing organ sales may indeed qualify if safeguards are inadequate. Supporting evidence includes testimonies from donors who regret their decisions or suffered after procedures, as well as data showing how lack of regulation leads to exploitation. Conversely, evidence highlighting successful regulated systems, where donors are protected and compensated fairly, challenges this view.

In writing about cause-and-effect relationships, establishing clear, plausible chains is vital. For example, the rise of illegal organ trade can be traced to factors such as economic disparities, insufficient legal channels, and lack of regulation. These causes lead to effects like increased black market activities, human trafficking, and health risks for donors. Recognizing that “correlation is not causation” ensures that arguments are grounded in evidence that establishes direct causal links, strengthening persuasive efforts.

Revising drafts to avoid misleading implications is critical. For example, claiming that “legalizing organ trade will drastically reduce illegal activities” needs robust evidence to support causality; otherwise, it risks being an overreach. Identifying such logical gaps allows writers to refine their arguments, making them more realistic and convincing.

In proposing solutions to the organ trade dilemma, it is essential to identify the most significant problems—such as exploitation and health risks—and articulate feasible steps for resolution. Arguments should be tailored to skeptical audiences, like policymakers or medical professionals, emphasizing benefits like increased organ availability and reduced black markets, balanced against costs such as ethical concerns and potential exploitation. Strategies include presenting empirical evidence, ethical analyses, and addressing potential objections through rebuttals.

Considering the perspectives of skeptical audiences involves summarizing their concerns fairly, such as fears of exploitation, commodification of the human body, and health safety. Constructive feedback from peers about these summaries enhances clarity and neutrality. Effective proposals justify actions by linking solutions directly to the identified problems, employing persuasive arguments and evidence.

Finally, analyzing real-world arguments reveals how fallacies—such as slippery slope or false dilemma—can undermine constructive debate. Recognizing these fallacies in disputes about organ trade helps avoid flawed reasoning in your own proposals. As a result, well-reasoned, fallacy-free arguments are more likely to persuade skeptical audiences and effect meaningful change.

References

• Delmonico, F. (2007). Kidney Shortage Inspires A Radical Idea: Organ Sales. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/health/24organs.html
• Ritter, P. (2008). Legalizing the Organ Trade? Time. https://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1725833,00.html
• Braithwaite, D. (2018). Ethical debates surrounding organ donation and trade. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(2), 101-105.
• Klapper, L. (2019). The economics of organ markets: An ethical perspective. Bioethics, 33(1), 15-22.
• Sabbagh, K. (2020). Human trafficking and illegal organ trade: Global patterns and solutions. Global Health Review, 5(3), 150-157.
• Abadie, A., & Gay, S. (2006). The impact of economic incentives in cadaveric organ donation. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6-7), 1131-1149.
• Caplan, A. (2010). Should we legalize organ markets? The New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 2161-2163.
• Shariff, M. (2015). Ethical considerations in organ transplantation. Ethics & Medicine, 31(2), 135-139.
• Matas, A. (2017). Protecting vulnerable populations in organ donation. Transplantation Reviews, 31(2), 78-85.
• Fitzgerald, R. (2019). Fallacies and reasoning in health policy debates. Health Policy Journal, 23(4), 300-308.