Motezamen1

TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS REPORT (LONG FORM) Name: Setareh Motezamen Aghmioni Course: Biology 1090-005 Book: Taking sides readings Issue number: Issue 4: Are We Winning the War on Cancer? 1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side: John R. Seffrin believes that we are winning the war on cancer. Also there is no worry about Cancer as a major public health problem anymore. 2. Author and major thesis of the No side: Reynold Spector states that there has been little gained against cancer and there are just a very little progress against Cancer, so we are not winning the war against cancer. 3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text? In my opinion both authors frame their questions. They try lead the readers to believe what they want. On the yes side John R. Seffrin states Ladies and gentlemen-we are winning! When the readers read this statement, first thought that comes in mind is victory, and they will be convince. On the no side one there is this question Why has the War on Cancer Failed? Reynold Spector explains how the difficult problem is and he used the example like Most treatments are nonspecific cell killers and not smart. 4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side. Yes side: John R. Seffrin discusses about the approval of the HPV vaccine which can prevent Cervical Cancer and they just have to make sure it is available to every woman who needs this vaccine. No side: Reynold Spector gives to the readers the percentages on how much deaths have declined because of heart disease and stroke due to betterments in drug therapy, and yet Cancer Therapy is decades behind. 5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side. Yes side: In John R. Seffrin opinion, if we dont do anything about tobacco users, 650 million people alive today will eventually die, I didnt see any facts supporting for this idea. So it can be an opinion, but it needs strong evidence to be a fact. No side: Reynold Spector is not optimistic with this opinion if there are five hundred or more genetic abnormalities in a single cancer cell. Where would one begin? Always there is a start with one cell at a time. Also in his view, it would be more useful if just used for those who need it.

Motezamen2

6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can. One of the subjects which grab my attention on the yes side was the tobacco company operation. They kill the majority of their customer. They try to grow their markets with children. Why would anybody want to kill their customers? Children do have education and so do most adults in the USA they are capable of making their own choices by considering that, it is not legal to be smoking tobacco under the age of 19 in Utah and in most other states under the age of 18. It is a personal choice not the companies. 7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can. It is hard to compare how we have research has helped treat cardiovascular disease using medications to how to treat cancer present day and in the future. It miss leading to suggest that it will be more difficult to treat cancer as the same way that we have treated than cardiovascular diseas. 8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why? Reynold Spectors presentation affected me, because he used charts and the information he provided like how weve had more progress with strokes and cardiovascular disease, improving drug therapy. I agree with him. 9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases? Yes, John R. Seffrin from the yes side is the president of the American Cancer Society. He has to consider his profit and say nice thing about his company. If he talked any negative word about his company it would possible to lose the company supporters or his salary and other benefits. 10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the material in these articles? Why? I think by attention to all access we have until today,Reynold Spectors from the no side can be more correct. If we could had any victory on cancer we wouldnt have to do some surgeries or even screenings that cannot have any helpful results for cancer. Maybe there are some ways to barricade cancer, for example not smoking or using some useful foods, but we still need some treatments which they are very expensive like some smart drugs at the price of $20,000 for twelve weeks of therapy for two months survival. In my opinion to be winning the war against cancer we need to have better ways like cheaper medications or surgeries to make a possibility for everyone who has cancer to use, and give a second chance to be survive to the people.

Motezamen3