In the end of the passage, Barry claims “Not all scientific investigations can deal comfortably with uncertainty…” This then ties back with the beginning of the piece when he states,”Certainty gives strength.” This would be important because it describes how scientist are needed to be open minded and positive. He then utilizes certain word choice such as lack, rarely, and yield, in order to make the audience more interested in Barry's
The use of the paradox in The Great Influenza by John M. Barry reveals seemingly contradictory statements true. In the second paragraph Barry believes that one must "embrace – uncertainty" (Barry). He uses this literacy device to highlight uncertainty as a welcomed sensation to be accepted, rather than denied. Along with presenting truthful statements, Barry makes every word, phrase, and sentence that he writes ultimately more powerful and read at different understanding levels by raising the bar and introducing contradicting information. Barry characterizes scientific research as contradicting.
In the first paragraph Barry begins by listing the differences of the strength and conviction of certainty with the weakness and fear of uncertainty to better define “uncertainty”. In his second paragraph he starts establishing the direction; He starts with listing the qualities that a scientist should have, ending with an emphasis on courage. Barry does not think courage means “venturing into the unknown,” which is a professional way of saying “jumping off a cliff that you don’t have any idea how high is, eyes closed, screaming” but instead the courage to face the fact that everything you know could be shattered upon the “sharp edge of a single finding.” In his third paragraph, Barry continues emphasis on, is that to be a good scientist you have to reject all that is not fact. This means the total rejection of religion, the afterlife and anything that may be commonly accepted
Using the sources effectively in a persuasive piece, Kingwell demonstrates, through examples and science researches, the difficulty in defining happiness, which can result in unhappiness. In this article, Kingwell first relates happiness as a dubious concept and paradox that can hardly be defined in a single sentence. He continues to discuss unhappiness as a result of the insatiable pursuit of happiness. And finally, Kingwell demonstrates how scientists try to reduce happiness to a genetic factor. The science assumption makes happiness a biological pattern that can
In John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza”, he uses figurative language, compares and contrasts, and process analysis. Barry demonstrates that scientists are put through obstacles to be addressed as a Scientist and their duties as one by accepting doubt as a primary function for obtaining well-produced results. The passage begins by contrasting the ideas of certainty and uncertainty. Barry claims that certainty “creates strength” and “gives on something upon which to lean.”, while he explains that uncertainty “makes one tentative, if not fearful.” This gives an idea that there is a sense of doubt when it comes to facing obstacles such as scientist’s research and beliefs. “Scientists must accept the fact that all his or her work, even beliefs, may break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding.” These points illustrate that scientists must be able to deal with uncertainty by having the “...intelligence and curiosity...passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage.”, which
Distraction is a necessary “evil” for society to move forward and craft original and unique ideas for the future. Throughout his essay, Anderson’s tone commits a fluctuating change between caution and optimism. At the beginning of the piece, Anderson’s word choice towards attention is immensely negative. He defines the problem of attention with illustrative jargon like, “diagnose,” “fetishize,” “lament,” and “hunt,” (Anderson). The counter-argument, or in this case counter-vocabulary, that Anderson provides shows how society view attention as an “illness” that needs a diagnoses.
In this passage, Alan Levinovitz uses many paths to persuade his audience that the danger of sugar consumption may be exaggerated. First, he starts out by showing examples of how scientists ideas on how sugar affects someone, have been proven wrong. Then, Alan goes on to say that some of the claims are ridiculous if they really thought about. Last, he talks about how food shouldn't be stressful because one is thinking about what is in the food they are preparing. As mentioned earlier, the first way he built his argument was to show all the incorrect accusations on sugar.
In this text by Paul Lauritzen he spoke of ways we can torture a possible enemy of the country in a way that would not strip them of their basic human rights or that would alter their conception of reality, in order to get the information needed from them to save countless lives. Now I know that sounds petrifying, but as soon as you really get into the reading you'll understand why it's utterly captivating. Now let's get down to business, Paul gave many different definitions to dignity, he wanted to discover what dignity is exactly, he said that one of the forms of torture that strip a person of their dignity is when you make their life so horrible that they just don't want to live anymore. Another one was that dignity is the same as autonomy,
Tim O’Brien intends to pull the readers from truth as a way to help readers fully understand the real feelings that the perilous war created. Showing the creation of a new reality through his style of fictional storytelling-- soldiers thoughts being the truth-- rather than telling the facts of war is because the facts are not efficient in displaying trauma. Whereas, fiction is the most powerful way to expose the truth to an audience because to live sanely in the war, a new reality had to be looked through. As a result Tim O 'Brien 's fictional stories provide us with a lens, giving readers a way to see the same reality as the soldiers did while also bestowing the opportunity to experience rather than listen. Throughout, Tim O’Brien’s collection of short stories in the book The Things They Carried, Tim forces readers to question whether these
These different messages come together to form one powerful message to his readers. He wanted to comment on the declining state of America’s values, and how he wanted that to change. In Catch-22 Heller wanted to show readers what war did to nations, and wanted to help open people's eyes to the dehumanization of it all. Something Happened was a much different than the previous book, but kept the focus on America. He wanted to show how corporations make people into faceless and all around insignificant beings, and their effects on the human psyche.
Many persuasive arguments must have reasons to back up the findings, as reasoning holds an argument together. The fact that Dr. Shah is explaining the reasons behind the C-sections helps the reader acknowledge that the author wants the reader to understand him better. After the reader has read the article, it is clear to see that it is a persuasive argument. They may notice this since the author uses persuasive techniques, such as evidence and reasoning, to convince readers that hospital birth is dangerous compared to other options. Those two techniques are not the only ones seen within the article, they are only the tip of the iceberg.