- Who is your specific audience?
For my topic my audience will be directed toward the general audience; more specifically woman between the ages of 12- late 20’s. HPV has been a crucial issue that has been in and out of the news the past few months. Not a lot of women truly understand the importance of HPV and the shot Gardisil. So the main purpose of my essay would be to educate them and hopefully prevent them from experiencing the consequences of HPV. I feel this is a very important subject, especially with all the recent discovers of HPV being the leading cause of 4 types of cervical cancer. I choose this audience because they are the ones to be most effected by it. Many women in that age range have first hand experience with HPV. If they would have had this information beforehand they might have been able to prevent suffering. If women are educated about their personal help, they can also educate other women who are not by “word of mouth.” In my essay I am trying to convince women that it will be beneficial for them to get Gardisil, but solely because they want to. No government or doctors justify the right of mandating a required shot for anyone.
- Which fallacies will you need to focus on keeping from your argument? Why are these (individually) important to consider in your argument?
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this)(Also called Confusing Chronology with Causality) This would be a possible Fallacy in my paper because I could assume, and not explain that Gardisil, the shot, will prevent all types of cervical cancer, and sexually transmitted disease. I need to thoroughly explain how the shot works, what it prevents and the possible side effects. Hasty Generalization This could be a possible fallacy in my paper if I begin to argue that getting the shot is the only possible cure against cervical cancer. I need to explain that Gardasil does not 100% prevent cervical cancer, and it does not cure it. As of right now it helps prevent it greatly, but it could be possible that another shot or medicine is invented in the future to help prevent HPV and cervical cancer. Either-or ReasoningThis could be a possible Fallacy if I stick to the side that getting Gardisil is the only solution in preventing cervical cancer. There are other precautions I could mention that would help decrease the chances of getting HPV and later on cervical cancer.
Ad Hominem (Against the Person) This could be a possible fallacy if I state that the only reason the governors from various states made the law mandatory was to get money for their future campaigns. Even though I believe this has a strong correlation for why they passed this legislation, I want to stay open minded and try to discover other reasoning behind their actions. Appeals to False Authority and Bandwagon Appeals Gardasil commercials, advertisements, and pamphlets are seen everywhere today. Many of these provide a sense of pathos. If parents don’t get their daughters the shot, then what kind of parents are they. The shot is very popular right now; if woman don’t get it then they will be out of the circle. Slipper SlopeIf they make Gardasil mandatory for all girls, then sexual activity will dramatically increase within the teenager population because they believe it will prevent them from getting HPV.Overreliance on authority This could be a fallacy if I fail to explain that it does not always prevent the 4 types of HPV.
