AVAG's “Don't You Think You Should Know"

1. A standardisation of the argument used in AVAG's “Don't You Think You
Should Know?’ information sheet.
The argument used is AVAG’s “Don’t you think you should know?’’ information sheet
focussing upon having greater information for informing one’s decisions related to the person
health and the family’s health by throwing light upon five stated premise. It intends to
enhance awareness related to vaccines. Also, it is important to inform one further and to
begin forming the correct decisions related to vaccines rather than placing the health of the
children in the hands of other people. The instruction suggests under five premises the way
how vaccine corporations are offering incorrect and ineffective treatments to the people.
AVAG strongly suggests people not to trust their doctors as well as pharmaceutical firms
upon the view that they skin and cheat. The second premise asserts that new born babies are
provided STD vaccine, particularly focussing upon Hepatitis B. Although, Hepatitis could be
easily transmitted sexually, sharing of needles, direct contact and other means. Moving
ahead, AVAG makes use of Robert Kennedy being an advocate against vaccines, although he
doesn’t hold any actual link with the medical world. The fourth premise focuses on statistics
highlighting that vaccinations meant for preventing were already on the decline before their
vaccination being actually introduced. Lastly, the fifth premise states that there are rising
levels of other diseases subsequent to the introduction of vaccines.
2. A 500 word analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, as you've
standardised it.
As stated above the argument used is AVAG’s “Don’t you think you should know?’’
information sheet focussing upon having greater information for informing one’s decisions
related to the person health and the family’s health by throwing light upon five stated
premise. It intends to enhance awareness related to vaccines. Also, it is important to inform
people further and form the correct decisions related to vaccines rather than placing the health
of the children in the hands of other people. People are likely to search for sound independent
guidance prior to making any significant life choices, nevertheless in case of medicine, the
majority of individuals are simply taught to have faith in doctors and through extension,
pharmaceutical corporations. It is believed that the people should not do that. The doctor also
obtains the information related to vaccines from the corporations, which actually form them.
Moving ahead, standardization involves few strengths as well as weaknesses. First when
talking about strengths it can be clearly stated that the statement intends to help keep

individuals and their loved ones as healthy and as safe as possible. That is the reason for
laying emphasis upon making knowledgeable decisions related to vaccines. It lays focus upon
knowing the ingredients along with side effects before actually getting it done. Individuals
receiving vaccines are rarely ever shown the ingredients list or side effects. Nurses and
doctors are frequently unwilling of showing them. At AVAGs, it is highly believed that
people should know. It is valid to say that people must hold good information related to
vaccines before actually getting them done since there are also companies that are just
interested in making profits at the cost of other people health. Increased knowledge will
certainly help in making informed decisions. However, there is a weakness also associated
with the same. The people not belonging to medical stream might read and understand the
medical terms as well as information in some wrong manner, ultimately ending up in making
incorrect medical decisions. Not all doctors are here to make profit so it is advisable to
contact them especially for people not belonging to medical for making right and suitable
decisions as small mistake can have a great toll on overall well-being.
The overall structure of the article is certainly its strength since it offers five evident as well
as distinct premises for the chosen argument, making them simple to navigate as one reads,
offering assistance to the reader. With reference to renowned and reliable sources, the
awareness of names offers the premise a sound background perspective, making it simpler for
the reader to approve the provided article although the sources are not essentially appropriate
or correct. Moreover, the usage of inclusive language is also considered as being a strength
for the paper since the authors assert that they attempting to help people and make them
healthier with the medical practices. However, the weaknesses have been mirrored in the
gaps present in the arguments. Every premise presented just a few sentences for providing
proof but following that, the researcher makes use of rhetorical questions, vagueness and
emotional language that builds a deception of a sound argument; when actually there prevails
less or no actual proof offered or follow up or reliable references. AVAG have highlighted
just fraction of the truth however have been ineffective in explaining the disease in general
that is a weakness in their argument in case if it suggested for individuals to perform
additional research that is what is the conclusion of the article.
3. A 500 word analysis of the language and rhetoric used in the “Don't You Think
You Should Know?” information sheet.

The language as well as rhetoric used in the “Don't You Think You Should Know?”
information sheet is simple but at the same time strongly puts forward its point. All
throughout the paper efforts have been made to make reader think about their decisions and
the way they approach vaccinations. It has been set in such a manner that it effectively
catches the attention of the reader and makes them think over the point stated and discussed.
The language of the paper is set in a manner that it helps in throwing emphasis upon key
points. The paper makes use of different writing styles ranging from direct statements,
questions and effective explanations related to the chosen subject. As stated above the
argument used is AVAG’s “Don’t you think you should know?’’ information sheet focussing
upon having greater information for informing one’s decisions related to the person health
and the family’s health. It intends to enhance awareness related to vaccines. Also, it is
important to inform one further and to begin forming the correct decisions related to vaccines
rather than placing the health of the children in the hands of other people.
People are likely to search for sound independent guidance prior to making any significant
life choices, nevertheless in case of medicine, the majority of individuals are simply taught to
have faith in doctors and through extension, pharmaceutical corporations. It is believed that
the people should not do that. The doctor also obtains their information related to vaccines
from the corporations, which actually form them, the very individuals highly invested in
getting people for using them. This involves data linked with the efficiency, security and need
of utilizing vaccines. It is asserted that this does not offer one the sound independent
assistance one needs. Rather, focus is laid upon doing own vaccine research and making the
correct decisions related to the family’s health. For helping one with that, some important
facts have been provided, which the pharmaceutical corporations will prefer people not think
about. It focuses upon not taking doctor’s word for it; rather finding out for oneself. The
language of the paper has been set in a manner, that it effectively puts forward and make
people believe that whatever is included is valid and appropriate. Moreover, the usage of
inclusive language is also considered as being a strength for the paper since the authors assert
that they attempting to help people and make them healthier with the medical practices.
However, the weaknesses have been mirrored in the gaps present in the arguments. Every
premise presented just a few sentences for providing proof but following that, the researcher
makes use of rhetorical questions, vagueness and emotional language that builds a deception
of a sound argument; when actually there prevails less or no actual proof offered or follow up
or reliable references.