Research Paper Overview For The Final Assignment In ENGL 102 ✓ Solved

Research Paper Overview For the final assignment in ENGL 102, you will write a Research Paper

For the final assignment in ENGL 102, you will write a research paper in which you take a stand on an issue, provide reasons and evidence to support your position, summarize alternative views, and respond to them. The goal is to persuade your audience to agree with or understand your point of view. The process includes two steps: a formal outline and the final draft, which will guide and ensure your paper stays on topic and meets assignment criteria.

The suggested structure includes an introduction with a thesis statement, support with evidence, presentation of opposing views, refutation of these opposing views, and a conclusion. The formal outline with thesis is due on Monday, October 5. You must incorporate at least eight sources from various types: books, print articles, online sources (with no more than two from the internet), interviews, and local publications. At least three different types of sources are required.

The final draft is due on Friday, December 11, and should utilize your collected sources to craft a convincing argument. Addressing and refuting opposing viewpoints is essential to enhance your credibility and provide a balanced perspective.

Your final paper must include a clearly defined issue approved by your instructor, demonstrate the problem's significance, and contain at least eight sources. It should have a specific audience and purpose, be well-organized with a clear thesis, reasons, and evidence, and include acknowledged opposing viewpoints with effective rebuttals. The paper should be around 1500 words, with varied sentence structure, and adhere to MLA citation format on a Works Cited page.

Potential topics include issues such as arming pilots, public art funding, cancel culture, affordable healthcare, endangered species, fast food and obesity, free college, infrastructure spending, immigration, privacy rights, and others listed in the guidelines, with an emphasis on selecting a specific, well-defined topic. Avoid controversial subjects like abortion, gun control, or drug legalization unless explicitly approved.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Title: The Impact of Mandatory Vaccination Policies on Public Health and Personal Freedom

Introduction

The debate over mandatory vaccination policies embodies a complex intersection of public health interests and individual rights. As infectious diseases continue to threaten communities worldwide, governments and health organizations advocate for compulsory immunization to prevent outbreaks. However, opponents argue that mandatory vaccination infringes on personal freedoms and autonomy. This paper aims to examine the necessity and implications of mandatory vaccination policies, weighing the benefits of disease prevention against the rights of individuals. By analyzing credible evidence and addressing opposing viewpoints, the discussion will elucidate why mandatory vaccination remains a crucial tool in safeguarding public health.

Supporting Arguments

First, mandatory vaccination programs have historically played a pivotal role in controlling and eradicating infectious diseases. For example, the Global Eradication of Smallpox demonstrates how widespread immunization can eliminate deadly viruses (Foege, 2000). Vaccines contribute significantly to herd immunity, protecting vulnerable populations such as infants and immunocompromised individuals who cannot be vaccinated themselves (Plotkin, 2014). Moreover, ensure economic stability by reducing healthcare costs associated with preventable diseases. According to the CDC (2020), vaccination programs save billions annually in healthcare expenses and productivity losses.

However, opponents contend that mandatory vaccination policies compromise personal freedoms. They argue that individuals should have the autonomy to make medical decisions without government coercion (Hull, 2019). Concerns about vaccine safety and potential side effects fuel resistance, with critics claiming that compulsory policies may erode civil liberties (Smith & Johnson, 2021). Furthermore, some communities mistrust vaccines due to historical abuses or misinformation, leading to vaccine hesitancy (Larson et al., 2016).

Refutation of Opposing Views

While personal freedom is fundamental, it must be balanced against public health needs. The principle of autonomy does not grant absolute rights when individual decisions threaten community safety. Infectious diseases are highly contagious, and low vaccination rates can lead to outbreaks, as seen during the measles resurgence in the United States (Gastañaduy et al., 2017). Legal frameworks, such as school vaccination requirements, demonstrate societal acceptance of balancing individual rights with collective safety (Omer et al., 2019). Regarding safety concerns, extensive research affirms that authorized vaccines are safe and effective, with adverse effects being rare and typically mild (CDC, 2020). Misinformation and distrust, while serious issues, should be addressed through education rather than coercion, ensuring informed consent and respecting individual agency.

Conclusion

The evidence underscores that mandatory vaccination is a necessary public health strategy to prevent epidemic outbreaks and protect society's most vulnerable. While respecting individual rights is essential, such considerations should not undermine the collective good achieved through immunization. Effective policies should include transparent communication, education, and accommodations where appropriate to address concerns without compromising overall health security.

References

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Vaccine safety. CDC.
• Foege, W. H. (2000). The eradication of smallpox: An overview. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 182(Supplement 1), S3–S4.
• Gastañaduy, P. A., et al. (2017). Measles resurgence — United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(15), 399–404.
• Hull, A. (2019). Vaccine mandates and personal freedom. Bioethics Today, 33(4), 253–260.
• Larson, H. J., et al. (2016). Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective. Vaccine, 34(17), 2139–2145.
• Omer, S. B., et al. (2019). Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. NEJM, 380(19), 1771–1778.
• Plotkin, S. (2014). Vaccines: Past, present, and future. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 58(4), 521–526.
• Smith, L., & Johnson, R. (2021). Civil liberties and vaccination mandates: A legal perspective. Journal of Public Health Policy, 42(2), 265–275.