Toulmin Argument on Positives of Animal Rights Testing It is a Toulmin Argument on the positives of Animal Testing and how it is beneficial to us as humans.
My main focus on this will be to discuss the benefits for animals and humans in regards to testing.
Student Name: John Doe
Instructor: Tony Ruggiero
English 122 Section # XXXXX
Essay Type: Toulmin Argument
28 September, 201X
Far Better or Maybe for the Worse?
Introduction: Once upon a time and happily thereafter are terms that we are all familiar with and have even grown accustomed to. Likewise, many people imagine the future marriage that will allow them to spend the rest of their life with their soul mate. However, almost all people in this day know of at least one marriage that has failed due to various circumstances. In 2014 divorce has become such a frequent result of marriages that people should be wondering why marriages are failing in the first place. Divorce is not always simply the result of failed love. Divorce tends to be the result of high assumptions of economic provision, lack of expected health quality, or infertility within marriages that couples may seek standards that are unreachable for even the strongest loves and dissolve the bedrock of modern day society.
Evidence 1: Upon entering a marriage, the newlyweds each have their own beliefs that their personal economic and education standards will be met. People say that money is not everything when it comes to love, but statistics from research by scholars Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt, report those harder economic times have had an impact. The percentage of a lasting first marriage differs among education levels with those “highly educated”, or obtaining at minimum a bachelor’s degree, with 56% intact, those “moderately educated”, or those with a high school diploma, with 45%, and “least educated”, or those who did not complete high school, with 39% (Wilcox and Marquardt). The chance of divorce also changes among these standards as “highly educated” having an 11% chance of divorce within 10 years, “moderately educated” with a 37% chance and “least educated” with a 36% chance (Wilcox and Marquardt ). Clearly depicted through the documented studies, the education status correlates directly with income conditions. This imbalance shows staggering evidence of a marital divide that also affecting marriage and the very fabric of that binds our society together.
Evidence 2: Although many wedding vows include the promise that the couple will be there in sickness and in health, this pledge to one another can be tested if a spouse is later diagnosed with a chronic illness that puts a strain on the ideal relationship. Research specialist and Social Family Advocate Recipient, Alexandra Sifferlin, reviewed a 2010 study from the University of Michigan of 2,717 couples and found that “31% of marriages involving at least one sick partner end in divorce” (Sifferlin). Although this percentage seems low, taken in a different angle, this means that a little over 3 out of every 10 marriages facing medical issues ends in divorce. With emerging diseases yearly, the category of couples with health problems will only increase, therefore this statistic will apply to more of the population. Once embedded onto a host, this terminal illness will eat away at the foundation of family and society.
Evidence 3: A common goal of many marriages is to produce children to fulfill an idea of a family; but what if this dream cannot be fulfilled due to infertility? Erica Berman, a doctor in psychology with over thirty-five years’ experience, states infertility can “create a substantial financial burden for people; it can destroy a couple’s intimacy; it can cause serious significant emotional distress and interfere with everyday functioning” (Berman). The emotional effects of this incapability to provide what was expected can become a divide in marriages with blame felt on either side of the situation. If the relationship is built on the foundation to reproduce as an outpouring symbol of their love, couples can feel as if they have lost their identity as a pair and the definition of a family when this is not a possibility and therefore feel left out and potentially withdrawing from society.
Rebuttal: There are circumstances during which divorces are solely the result of lack of intimacy, passion or commitment. Perhaps a wrong choice is made at too young of age or in a moment of idealistic passion. However, the absence of these sentimental connections can be “rooted within the broader emotion of resentment that has underlying causes which are greater than a sudden change of heart” (Pilossoph). Even marriages that have intentions to endlessly love one another can be damaged by societal demands of a basic standard of living and initial dreams that are broken by unforeseen situations.
Warrant/Backing: People with a long-term commitment to others provide communities with healthier and more productive individuals that contribute to society positively. Those that have made continuous responsibility to one another “are 1.3 times more likely to participate in volunteer opportunities to promote the welfare of others” (Keyes). Further Cohen reports that people who make an abiding promise to stand by another person through any circumstance “tend to report higher life satisfaction and lower psychological distress than single people.” Clearly, the suggestion of higher life satisfaction can make a stronger bedrock of society.
Conclusion: With marriages lacking commitment to promises made during wedding ceremonies to take their partner for life, society needs to begin to set the example for future marriages that divorce should not be the easy outcome when the future does not unfold as planned. Social classes have been placed at odds in yet another dimension with dramatic differences in the expectancy of success in marriage. As health conditions impact adults of various ages, these medical concerns become weights on the potential for a long-term marriage. The expectation of children to create a family has left infertile spouses to create a break in a relationship due to feelings of inadequacy. Since divorce is a high trend in recent years, couples considering marriage should evaluate mistakes of past marriages in order to prevent unreachable standards and prepare to stick with the vows made to be together “for better or worse” in order to create a future with higher standards of commitment so that society has the chance to live happily thereafter.
Toulmin Argument on Positives of Animal Rights Testing Works Cited
Berman, Erica, Ph.D. “When Infertility Affects Your Marriage.” The Huffington Post. 23 Jan. 2013. Web 25 Sept. 2014.
Cohen, Lisa J, Ph.D. “What Makes a Marriage Work?” Psychology Today. 2 May 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
Keyes, Corey L. M., “Social Civility in the United States.” Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 72, No. 3 (2002), pp. 393-408.
Pilossoph, Jackie. “There Really Is Only One Reason People Get Divorced.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Divorce More Likely When Wife Falls Ill.” Time. 1 May 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
Wilcox, Bradford W., and Marquardt, Elizabeth. “When Marriage Disappears: The Retreat from Marriage in Middle America.” The State of Our Unions 2010. Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
English 102-Writing Project 2 Assignment Sheet
NOTE: All assignments should in MLA format and submitted through the appropriate assignment link on Blackboard. Each major writing project will go through an extensive drafting process that will include prewriting, drafting and revising. You MUST be prepared for, and participate in, the peer review before submitting the final draft.
Project 2: Toulmin Argument
Purpose/Goal: Utilizing sources and research developed from the preliminary study of a topic in Writing Assignment 1, each student will write an individual argumentative paper. The object of this writing assignment is to develop an argumentative paper on a position directly related to the topic which is assigned to the group. Students may use any articles discovered from Writing Project 1 and may add additional sources as required.
Group Focus: The group should divide their focus on a common position on the topic. For example, if the group is exploring the topic of free education, the group will split its focus by having half of the group members develop an argument by pursuing the positive aspects while the other half develops an argument by pursuing the negative aspects of such a system keeping in mind trying to avoid completely extremis points of view, those that will not seek compromise under any circumstance, if possible.
Group Requirement: Students cannot duplicate sources in their papers. Each member of the group must utilize different sources in the production of this argument. A coordinated effort is essential to this assignment.
Toulmin Argument on Positives of Animal Rights Testing Paper Requirements
- Length: 1000-1200 words. Utilize example posted under course documents and under the assignment.
- Use a minimum of (4) four and a maximum of (6) six sources.
- Include works cited list.
- Perform peer review on scheduled days.
- Essays will be submitted through Blackboard drop box in accordance with the course calendar. Format as a .doc or rtf file only.
See Course Calendar
Toulmin Argument on Positives of Animal Rights Testing Introduction: 20 Points
(1) Grabber is to get the readers interest. A grabber should not give away the topic of the paper. It begins with the title of the paper.
(2) Next, provide a basic overview of the issue so that the reader can get a basic idea.
(3) Provide a clearly defined/SPECIFIC claim that states (at a minimum) position on the issue–what are you examining—how you are examining—why you are examining (greater purpose). Optional questions to be answered in the thesis are who-where-when.
(Reviewing the PowerPoint presentation under the course documents is a must! A poor thesis lowers the grade by at least ONE to TWO grade levels because it affects EVERY part of the paper.
3-5 Body Paragraphs- 30 Points – Each body paragraph MUST contain:
(1) A topic sentence that correlates to the thesis statement.
(2) Introduces your source (applies to Ethos).
(3) Show the source support/evidence (applies to Logos).
(4) Discuss how to support/evidence supports topic (may apply to Pathos).
(5) Make a direct connection to the greater purpose of a thesis statement (applies to Pathos).
Rebuttal 15 Points:
(1) State what the opposing point of view (generally the most common one) believes in and why. If you can’t find an opposing point of view–you do not have an argument!
(2) Produce evidence that suggests that the opposing point of view is weak or incorrect. You do not have to prove it wrong but at a minimum, it should cast doubt upon the opposing point of view.
Warrant/Backing 15 Points:
(1) Select as GENERAL a warrant as possible. You WILL NOT mention the actual topic of the paper. The more specific you make it the fewer people will agree with you. Break your issue down to its simplest foundation. This is what you want to use. Think of the basic needs of food-shelter-clothing, human interaction…etc.
(2) Add additional evidence to support your warrant, not the paper topic although there will obviously be some type of relationship.
Toulmin Argument on Positives of Animal Rights Testing Conclusion 20 Points:
(1) Restate the major claim/thesis of your paper-what you set out to do.
(2) Summarize the results of your findings AND make a connection to the claim you began with to show emphasis on how they work together toward the common goal.
(3) Look to the future by recognizing that your issue is part of something greater. This can be in the form of statement-a questions or some form of acknowledgment that may apply to the next paper.