Running head: ARGUMENT ANALYSIS 1

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS 2

Argument Analysis
Midwestern State University
COUN-2143-DX1
March 31, 2019

References
Johnson, S. R. (2020). Healthcare workers get top priority for COVID vaccine, but hospitals may not mandate it. Modern Healthcare, 50(44), 16.

Abstract
The increased hesitancy, delay, or refusal for measles vaccinations and the recent increase in this disease, is a growing concern that has reached a global level. The following two articles in this analysis demonstrate the effects that this anti-vaccine movement has had, by first documenting a measles outbreak that occurred in Brooklyn, New York, in the summer of 2013. Second, by a presenting a modeling study that simulates the substantial health and economics consequences that a potential outbreak would have on the country. Both studies have been summarized, acknowledging both successes and limitations in each. I have expressed my view about each article and give a summarization of how I feel this issue can be addressed in the future.

Argument Analysis
Fallout from parental hesitancy, delay, or refusal of vaccinations, is the leading factor resulting in the resurrection of previously eliminated diseases. This crusade is commonly known as the Anti-Vaccine or “Anti-Vaxx” Movement. One study focuses on the “real-life” consequences and economic burdens caused by this movement and the effects that one imported case of measles had on Brooklyn, a populous borough of New York City in the summer of 2013 (Rosen, Arciuolo, Khawja, Giancotti and Zucker, 2018). Lo and Hotez (2017) set out to answer the growing concerns of the anti-vaxx movement and how infectious diseases, specifically measles, could have a detrimental impact on not only public health systems, but on economics resources in the United States. Measles is a highly contagious viral infection which typically includes high fever with a rash which presents itself as flat red spots located on the upper torso. Transmission occurs both by airborne and respiratory droplets, with an infectious period of 4 days prior to the appearance of a rash and 4 days post (Rosen et al., 2018). Due to the mode of transmission for measles, a large outbreak can occur from a single case (Rosen et al., 2018). In 2000, the United States declared measles eradicated (Rosen et al., 1028), however there has been a recent decline in vaccinations due to celebrity advocacy and the spread of pseudo-science regarding the perceived dangers of vaccines (Lo and Hotez, 2017). The authors pose that the hesitancy of vaccinations has caused the emergence of preventable childhood diseases. The reader will consider the documented cases and mathematical models to evaluate and substantiate their claims.
On March 13, 2013, a teenager returned to New York City following a trip aboard to London, England. This trip coincided with an outbreak of the measles virus genotype D8, which had spread throughout the Unite

Argument Analysis

To better understand research methods, you will obtain and analyze two conflicting RESEARCH

articles on the diversity issue of your choice. You will explore the ways in which they are and

are not examples of credible scholarship by answering the guiding questions below for each

piece of literature. You will explore the ways in which they are and are not examples of

credible scholarship by answering the following guiding questions for each piece of literature.

1. Identify the author’s/authors’ research question.

2. Identify the hypothesis/es being tested.

3. Document at least three instances where statistical information was

displayed. Where did these numbers come from? Were they believable or

trustworthy? Why?

4. If you sought to answer the same research question, what two things would

you do to improve the credibility of the study and your findings?

5. Should findings from the study (or your own) be used to modify law?

Explain your opinion.

6. What is your personal response to the author’s/authors’ argument?

7. In what ways does your positioning influence the way you perceive the

author’s/authors’ argument?

Argument Analysis
Presentation

Nuña Bidness

COUN 2413

Abstract

• This presentation focuses on the types of sexism that occur in the workplace.
The two categories are benevolent sexism and hostile sexism. Each category
of sexism demonstrates the difference a women may feel between the two in
a workplace. The feelings can either be positive or negative depending on the
type of sexism and the type of women they are. Both categories believe that
women are less capable than men and should not be in superior roles.

Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism in the
workplace

• Benevolent sexist believe that women are delicate, weak, and fragile. The men
in the workplace may see the women as incompetent and should not be held
up to higher standards. “Benevolent sexists should believe that women are not
suited for positions of power” (Hideg, 2016, p. 9). Benevolent sexism is a
simple way of saying that women should be at home and not getting their
delicate hands dirty.

• Hostile sexist believe that women seek power to gain control over men. The
men who feel that way tend to be lower status males with more to lose. They
feel threatened by the women and become more hostile towards them.

Methods/Criteria

• The research for the presentation was conducted using the Midwestern State
University Library Database with Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost,
and CINAHL Complete . The journals used were Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology and British Journal of Social Psychology. Keywords used during the
search were “benevolent sexism” and “hostile sexism”. Literature reviews
used for the presentation were published between 2015-2016.

Article #1: The Compassionate Sexist? How Benevolent Sexism
Promotes and Undermines Gender Equality in the Workplace

• The article by Ivona Hideg and D. Lance Lerris
describes how benevolent sexism promotes and
undermines gender equality in the workplace.

• The hypothesis for their research was if
benevolent sexism was beneficial to women in
the workplace or if it was negative. This was also
in terms of gender employment equity and how
certain jobs are meant for males and others for
females.

• In the article there are 3 instances that suggest the benefit of
benevolent sexism towards women in the workplace.

• The first instance was a study measuring benevolent and hostile
sexism in the workplace by conducting a survey to participants
in college as well as individuals applying for a full-time job.
However, the study was not very accurate because the
possibility of stereotyping was possible and would result
inaccurate.

• The second instance was a study that suggested compassion as
a big factor towards benevolent sexism. It stated that
compassion was the reason that women were suggested to have
less stressful jobs that were for women.

• A third instance was a study that that suggested women be in a
feminine job (human resource management) and n

����������
�������

Citation: Varol, S.; Catma, S.; Reindl,

D.; Serieux, E. Primary Factors

Influencing the Decision to Vaccinate

against COVID-19 in the United

States: A Pre-Vaccine Analysis. Int. J.

Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19,

1026. https://doi.org/10.3390/

ijerph19031026

Academic Editor: Paul B.

Tchounwou

Received: 15 December 2021

Accepted: 11 January 2022

Published: 18 January 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

International Journal of

Environmental Research

and Public Health

Article

Primary Factors Influencing the Decision to Vaccinate against
COVID-19 in the United States: A Pre-Vaccine Analysis
Serkan Varol 1,* , Serkan Catma 2 , Diana Reindl 3 and Elizabeth Serieux 4

1 Department of Engineering Management, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga,
TN 37403, USA

2 Department of Business Administration, University of South Carolina Beaufort, Bluffton, SC 29902, USA;
catma@uscb.edu

3 Department of Nursing and Health Professions Business, University of South Carolina Beaufort, Bluffton,
SC 29902, USA; dreindl@uscb.edu

4 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA;
eserieux@uw.edu

* Correspondence: serkan-varol@utc.edu

Abstract: Because vaccine hesitancy is a dynamic trait, it is critical to identify and compare the
contributing factors at the different stages of a pandemic. The prediction of vaccine decision making
and the interpretation of the analytical relationships among variables that encompass public percep-
tions and attitudes towards the COVID-19 pandemic have been extensively limited to the studies
conducted after the administration of the first FDA-approved vaccine in December of 2020. In order to
fill the gap in the literature, we used six predictive models and identified the most important factors,
via Gini importance measures, that contribute to the prediction of COVID-19 vaccine acceptors and
refusers using a nationwide survey that was administered in November 2020, before the widespread
use of COVID-19 vaccines. Concerns about (re)contracting COVID-19 and opinions regarding manda-
tory face covering were identified as the most important predictors of vaccine decision making. By
investigating the vaccine acceptors and refusers before the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, we
can help public health officials design and deliver individually tailored and dynamic vaccination
programs that can increase the overall vaccine uptake.

Keywords: vaccine hesitancy; COVID-19 vaccination; mask mandate; predictive modeling

1. Introduction

Since 11 March 2020, when the World Health Organiz

RESEARCH ARTICLE

National attitudes of medical students

towards mandating the COVID-19 vaccine and

its association with knowledge of the vaccine

Danel MayanID
1*, Kenny Nguyen1‡, Brian Keisler2‡

1 University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina, United States of America,

2 Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia,

South Carolina, United States of America

‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work

* Danel.Mayan@uscmed.sc.edu

Abstract

Background

With the introduction of the novel COVID-19 vaccine, public hesitancy is being experienced

with many turning to healthcare professionals for advice. As future physicians, medical stu-

dents play a critical role in the public’s view of the vaccine.

Objectives

To determine the attitude of U.S. medical students toward mandating the COVID-19 vaccine

to healthcare workers and patients, as well as whether their knowledge of the vaccine plays

a role in their view.

Methods

The authors emailed a survey link to all U.S. medical schools with request to distribute it to

their medical students. The survey remained open from 02/09/2021 to 03/15/2021 and

included questions to determine the attitude of the medical students toward recommending

the COVID-19 vaccine, and general knowledge questions about the vaccine. Chi square,

Fisher’s exact test, and linear regression were conducted to determine associations

between willingness to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine and general knowledge of the

vaccine.

Results

Among the 1,899 responses from medical students representing 151 U.S. medical schools,

57.82% approved of making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory to healthcare workers, and

16.27% approved of making it mandatory to patients. Additionally, those who tested most

knowledgeable of the vaccine were less likely to approve of making the vaccine mandatory

for patients (66.67% vs. 72.70). Those that tested most knowledgeable were also more

likely to personally receive the vaccine (72.35% vs 62.99%) as opposed to those that tested

the least knowledgeable who were less willing to personally receive the vaccine (4.12% vs

14.17%).

PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260898 December 22, 2021 1 / 10

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Mayan D, Nguyen K, Keisler B (2021)

National attitudes of medical students towards

mandating the COVID-19 vaccine and its

association with knowledge of the vaccine. PLoS

ONE 16(12): e0260898. https://doi.org/10.1371/

journal.pone.0260898

Editor: James Andrew Rowley, Harper University

Hospital, UNITED STATES

Received: August 29, 2021

Accepted: November 18, 2021

Published: December 22, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Mayan et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License, which

permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction

Argument Analysis Rubric.html

Argument Analysis Rubric

 

Available Points

Points Earned

Comments

Content

 

 

 

Identified the author’s/authors’ research question for both articles.

10

 

 

Identified the hypothesis/es being tested for both articles.

20

 

 

Documented at least three instances where statistical information was displayed from
each article. Where did these numbers come from? Were they believable or trustworthy and why?

40

 

 

Completed for both articles: If you sought to answer the same research question, what two things would you do to improve
the credibility of the study and your findings?

20

 

 

Completed for both articles: Should findings from the study (or your own) be used to modify law? Explain your opinion.

10

 

 

Revealed personal response to the author’s/authors’ argument of each article.

20

 

 

Analyzed the ways your positioning based on your cultural identity, background, and experiences has influenced the way you perceived the author’s/authors’ argument
for each article.

20

 

 

Well written, using correct APA, grammar, and spelling.
Used two research articles for the analysis and added correct APA citations for each.

10

 

 

Late Deduction

 

 

 

Total

150

 

 




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.