Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Uses of Evidence | Coms Paper

Chapter 2 of the textbook discusses two scenarios in which evidence may not meet some audience’s expectations. In the first scenario, two scientific studies are in conflict with each other In the second scenario, a child psychiatrist uses stories from his patients rather than statistics as evidence. Each case poses a problem regarding the use of evidence: We sometimes have difficulty reconciling conflicting pieces of evidence, and we are reluctant to see stories, rather than statistics, as valid evidence. In the essay that you are writing right now, what kinds of evidence have you found? In what way might it meet an audience’s expectations? Name the audience, discuss how it may meet–or not meet–the audience’s expectations, and explain why.Chapter 2 is attached and my essay is also attached for referenceName: Earnest Dixon, Jr
Course: ENG-106
Date: February 19, 2020
Instructor: Professor Palenque
Thank you for submitting your assignment! I hope this was a fun, yet challenging task. As I
mentioned before, this assignment is what we call a “completion grade.” As long as you have
completed the assignment and submitted it on time, you will earn full credit. Now, it is time to
dig in to work!
Wow …what a strong start! Your thesis, content, and overall organization is great. At this point,
the only changes you need to make before you submit your final draft are the ones I have noted
in the comments I made throughout your paper. As you review these, please let me know if you
have any questions.
God bless,
Prof. Palenque
Cases of illicit human organ trade are on the rise around the globe, especially in
developed countries. The high number of cases result from little involvement of the government
to stop the inhumane practice. It is not surprising to discover that the concerned governments are
in a way involved in the unethical business. Cotemporary realities of illegal organ transactions
are more horrific than what traditional mythical narratives told concerning organ snatching.
Observers report that individuals in the high socio-economic class affiliate more to the illicit
practice than any other economic class.
Political or ideological prisoners in countries such as China fall victim to the trade, which
the government appears to support. The prisoners get tested by force, and if they meet the donor
criteria, the organ harvesting takes place benefitting the rich. Regardless, the involuntary donors
end up dead as a custom while those untested survive. Shepherd reports that China is a central
international figure in the trade, which often targets the weak and poverty-stricken citizens
(2019). The author further states that other countries in inhumane trade include; Egypt, Israel,
Bolivia, and Turkey, countries which are destinations for the harvested organs.
Ejiofor states that detractors believe that there is a positive correlation between the high
number of executions in China and the illicit human organ trade (2019). Some groups in China,
as human rights activists imply, stand out as viable prey in the business, including Falun Gong,
Uighurs, and Tibetans (Shepherd, 2019). The trade is ‘big busies,’ given that the donors, through
the families they leave behind, get no compensation for the forced but profitable donation.
Therefore, the benefits are one-sided, as the organs are beneficial to the recipients, who are the
affluent persons.
World Health Organization directs that human organ donation should take into
consideration the donor’s consent before harvesting (2020). Furthermore, the removal has to
keep up with legal requirements, including the ethical interpretation of death. From the World’s
Health Organization’s point of view, harvesting should occur after the donor volunteers to
contribute. Also, some harvesting, depending on the organs, should occur after the donor dies,
but the donation should not be the cause of death. In addition, the donation should have the sole
purpose of saving lives through transplant. Therefore, the primary purpose of organ donation is
not to make profits but rather to save lives (World Health Organization, 2020). Withal, the
organization advises that the donor’s state should protect the weak and needy from exploitation
in transplant tourism.
Research reveals that, beyond the Chinese Government forcing its prisoners to test for
organ donation viability, it also accommodates trafficked human beings from other parts of the
world. Similar to Chinese prisoners, the trafficked also becomes victims of the same fate
(Shepherd, 2019). The government authorized forceful donation and sale of prisoners of war
organs involves more wrong-doers other than the policymakers. Shepherd reports that organ
harvesting involves a large number of hospitals, implying that practitioners also engage in
unethical dealings (2019). Furthermore, predatory-brokers, dishonest government officials, and
human traffickers run the black market. Therefore, the Chinese prisoners and those trafficked
into China appear helpless since none of their dealers engage in legal dealings.
Since Kwan indicates that China is a WHO member state, then directives the organization
provides on organ donation is an excellent measure of how legal the documented practice is
(2018). Shepherd’s presentation of China’s organ market, without a doubt, falls under illegal
practices. The classification results from the forceful testing of potential donors, and the
harvesting, irrespective of the organ and tissues involved, occurs when the casualty is alive. As
an outcome, the organ harvesting results in the victim’s death. Furthermore, the practice is
unethical since the donation aims at benefiting the wealthy recipients since the financial gains are
enticing. The wealthy end up purchasing the organ in international markets, meaning that
families of the deceased donor receive no compensation. Also, poor buyers are not a prospective
market for the organs, and they end up suffering as the supply for the organs is scarce while the
demand is high.
Moreover, the practice is illicit since it targets the poor and vulnerable in Chinese society.
In most cases, the prisoners who fall, victims, are individuals who cannot buy their freedom and
are left at the mercies of the government. The opportunistic government takes advantage of the
prisoners by turning them into profits, all in the name of execution. Nevertheless, the unethical
aspect goes to as far as placing the selfish interests before the humanitarian need to save lives
who require transplantation in the country. The number of individuals who require transplant
grows by the day, and just like the international market, China has a shortage in the organ banks.
Given the situation, it would be more sensible to make the market equal for all, the poor and rich,
since they have corresponding needs in transplantation.
The involved hospitals are of questionable integrity into the practice, despite falling
under the jurisdiction of corrupt policymakers. A substantial number of practitioners in hospitals
are trained professionals and are aware of ethical practices. Unfortunately, the same practitioners
have a hand in the illicit trade. Despite pressures from the government for the doctors to harvest
the human organs, the concerned practitioners should be ethical enough to take a stand against
the practice. Forceful organ harvesting in such a working environment is a moral dilemma for the
clinicians. They could be facing threats from the government or their immediate employers while
still having the option of putting ethical practices first.
Nonetheless, the practitioners should not refrain from putting the interest of their patients
first. Prisoners who pass the test for organ donation are the patients in the context, and doctors
should listen to their pleas to realize they are involuntary organ donors (Essex, 2019). Withal, the
doctors in the case study are unethical since they harvest the organs while the patient is alive.
The conduct goes against international regulations such as those of the World Health
Organization on organ harvesting (2020). Outcomes of the harvesting have proven detrimental
as the donors end up dying. Therefore, the dilemma that medics face is non-complex since
saving a life is of utmost significance. The most common kind of privilege the practitioners
would forgo for saving lives could be financial benefits.
Shepherd argues that individuals who run the black market are criminals, and the
statement is true, given that all have no place for ethical practice in their dealings (2019). The
involved hospitals and practitioners are no exemption as they also act contrary to the ethical code
of conduct. World Medical Association (WMA) emphasizes that ethical medical practitioners
should respect competent patient rights in line with embracing or refusing a form of treatment
(2019). From the case study, the organ donation is a choice which the clinicians should allow the
prisoners to make in ethical medical practices.
A considerable number of the prisoners are in their best state to make sound decisions
regarding the practice. As a result, most of them do not require practitioners’ intervention to
make decisions on their behalf, even in such sensitive instances. However, the doctors seem to
exploit the prisoners’ vulnerabilities as justification for organ harvesting, without second
thoughts. Withal, the dark government directives fuel the medical malpractices, and it becomes
impossible for the prisoners to have a say on their fate in the exploitation.
Similarly, further studies insist that ethical medical practices should include upholding
human dignity while attending to patients in the practice environment (Rosenzweig, Novack, &
Duke, 2017). When the government presents prisoners or trafficked individuals for organ
harvesting, the concerned practitioners have no room for human dignity. The medics do not
listen to the potential donors’ requests since they are the weak and poor, as the doctors perceive
them as unprofitable to society. Such an approach is wrong since irrespective of who the
patients are; they are still equal humans as the doctors. The human aspect of the victims should
qualify them to earn respect from the medics.
Shepherd states that the back-market existence has been for a considerable time, alluding
that the number of victims has been substantial (2019). One perceives the extended period to be
adequate for the involved criminals to realize their actions are of fatal magnitude. The outcome
should be a conscious awakening to individuals who have a place for ethics in their dealings. In
equal measure, the duration must have been enough for the government to single out on the
‘dirty’ officials and act on the other persons involved.
However, the scenario is different as the government appears to embrace the unfair and
exploitation of the prisoners. However, the factor gets worse since the government acknowledges
the existence of the market and presents incorrect information on the issue. While the Chinese
government insists that it carries out 10, 000 organ transplants per year, investigations into the
concern indicates 100, 000 as the actual figure (Shepherd, 2019). From the variation in numbers,
one can point out that the Chinese government is unethical for lying about such crucial details.
Therefore, one remains doubtful about the government’s claims of change from forceful organ
harvesting and exploitation, due to the untrue statistics.
Ejiofor, P. F. (2019). The Ethics of Organ Sale (Doctoral dissertation, Central European
Essex, R. (2019). Do codes of ethics and position statements help guide ethical decision making
in Australian immigration detention centers? BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 52.
Kwan, M. (2018). The World Health Organization framework for virus sharing: law, recent
challenges, and its compliance. Public Health Law, Forthcoming.
Rosenzweig, S., Novack, D., & Duke, P. (2017). Professionalism education at Drexel University
College of Medicine. Medical Professionalism Best Practices: Professionalism in the 85.
Shepherd, T. (2019). The Cruel Cut of a Vile Trade. Retrieved 18
February 2020, from
World Health Organization. (2020). WHO | Human organ transplantation. Retrieved 18
February 2020, from
World Medical Association. (2019). WMA – The World Medical Association-WMA
International Code of Medical Ethics. Retrieved 18 February 2020, from
Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing
Finding Purpose Through Argumentative
Finding Evidence
By Dr. Thomas Skeen
Section 2 of the English 105 course materials compared incorporating source material to a frame
because the way in which a writer introduces and uses a source helps create a particular angle of
understanding for the reader, much like a photograph that includes certain images while leaving other
images out. The same principle applies to evidence generally. This section builds on that discussion
because a writer must necessarily choose some evidence at the expense of other evidence, and also
because using evidence is more about building a good case for an argument and creating an impression
for readers than it is about reporting facts. This chapter explains how using evidence is an intellectual
process that does not always lead to certainty or to “solid” arguments. The chapter begins with two
scenarios that demonstrate this approach to evidence. It then moves to the relationship between
writers and audiences and the role that evidence can play in that relationship, the need to “construct” a
case by using evidence and to increase the adherence an audience has to a writer’s argument, and some
frameworks that explain di erent types of evidence and how they might be used.
The Nature of Evidence
Scenario 1
The results of two scienti c studies are in con ict with each other. In the rst study, McAuley,
Hopke, Zhao, and Babaian (2012) found “no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette
emissions” after taking into account the particular compounds found in e-cigarette vapor that the
Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing
study measured (p. 850). In the second study, researchers suggested that the pollutants contained
in e-cigarette vapor “could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers” (Schober et al.,
2014, p. 628). Before using these studies in a research paper, a writer would do well to answer
questions like the following: What were the methodologies for both studies? Did researchers
measure the same pollutants in each study? Why else might discrepancies between the two studies
Scenario 2
In a published academic journal article, child psychiatrist Andres Martin (2000) used qualitative
evidence to convince his fellow psychiatrists to see tattoos as an opportunity to get to know their
teenaged patients, rather than as an opportunity to assess the problems they are facing. Martin’s
evidence contained no numbers—no statistics, no dollar amounts, and no measurable data. Rather,
he used descriptions of two teenage boys, who were his patients at the time, and their descriptions
of the tattoos they either had or were planning to get.
Exercise 1
1. What is your initial reaction to Scenarios 1 and 2?
2. Would you be willing to use any of the studies cited in the scenarios in your own research
writing? Why or why not?
How Audiences Perceive Evidence
In popular perceptions of academic writing, readers do not usually take kindly to ideas that come from
the writer; they would rather see a set of evidence that, through careful scienti c investigation, leaves
little room for question. In this view, facts are understood quite di erently from the way they are
portrayed in the scenarios. The popular view is that facts are irrefutable, and those who hold this view
might describe arguments as solid if they are supported by facts rather than opinions.
While it is true that there are such things as facts, such as water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea
level, they are hardly arguable. If facts like these are all a researcher has to work with, there are only
right and wrong answers, and the research with the real facts is right. At that point, there is no reason to
continue with research and writing because there is not really anything to learn about or anyone to
The aw with this perception is that it does not take into account the inherent instability of well-studied
facts. As shown in Scenario 1, two careful studies that are trying to establish facts about vapor from ecigarettes have come to di erent conclusions. While scienti c evidence is very useful and provides many
insights about the natural world, one should not describe it as “solid.” A person who relies on one of the
e-cigarette studies would still be advancing an argument based on an opinion, albeit a well-informed
Finding Purpose Through Argumentative Writing
Another impression that many people have is that numbers are reliable, and they certainly can be at
times. Statisticians have complicated formulas to derive data from observations so that they can analyze
them. There is a certain comfort in using numerical instruments to measure things. It gives one a sense
of control. The tools one uses to represent numbers, whether resorting to the humble yardstick or a set
of widely accepted statistical formulas that represent the highest standards of mathematical thinking,
are instruments that are often external to parties in a debate. These are agreed-upon instruments that
can provide important information about the phenomenon that was observed.
However, with that explanatory power comes an almost seductive sense of security. Numbers can be
represented in di erent ways to create di erent impressions. They may represent the same basic
computation or idea, but they are also adjustable, allowing a writer to adapt them based on purpose
and audience. In other words, numbers may seem like metrics that are independent of human
judgment, but they are not.
The National Highway Tra c Safety Administration (2008) released a fact sheet about driving and
talking on a cell phone. It found that 6% of drivers used cell phones while driving in 2007, which
translates to 1,005,000 vehicles during any given day (p. 1). At this point, a writer has a choice to
make: either use the statistic or use the number that the statistic represents. An author who uses
the statistic of 6% may convince an audience that the number of drivers who use cell phones while
driving is low, whereas an author who uses the number of 1,005,000 may convince an audience that
the number is high. Each number represents the same idea di erently.
Lastly, there are important kinds of data that academic writers often take into consideration, even
though they may not be driven by numbers. In the second scenario, Martin (2000) wished to persuade
his colleagues that tattoos could be a valuable way to get to know a teenaged patient if that teen
happens to have a tattoo or is planning to get one. To make that argument, Martin needed to
demonstrate that a tattoo may hold important meanings for the teen, rather than frivolous ones. He
could have conducted surveys of teenagers who have tattoos and then counted the responses to
develop a number like “320 out of 350 (or 91.42% of) respondents say their tattoos have important
meanings.” However, the persuasiveness of such data would be limited to their high quantity, and they
would not allow the audience to get a glimpse of the lives of the teenagers with whom Martin worked.
Instead, Martin chose to use qualitative evidence—not evidence that could be counted, but rather
evidence that must be described—to support his view. His description of two patients and their tattoos
had its own explanatory and persuasive power, which derives from an emphasis on the personal. He
was able to provide his fellow psychiatrists with a glimpse into these teens’ lives, showing how one
teenager memorialized his deceased father in the form of a tattoo, while the other had a tattoo of his
baby daughter’s face. The description and the inherent meaning of the tattoos could not have been
captured by numbers, and it provided Martin’s readers …
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!