Standardization of the Argument in AVAG

Standardization of the argument contained in the AVAG
C: parents should research more before deciding to vaccinate their offspring and should
not be forced to vaccinate their kids
1- Health professionals and vaccine companies are not reliable
1.1-Doctors knowledge about the vaccine is limited
1.1.1-Doctors receive their information about the vaccine from companies which
produce the vaccine
1.2- Vaccine companies do not provide accurate data about their products
1.2.1- Certain pharmaceutical firms conceal potential vaccination usage risks to
accomplish business interests
1.2.2- Many overseas vaccine companies turn to use bribery, deception, and fraud.
1.2.2.1- Robert F Kennedy claimed Merck, Pfizer, and many other overseas vaccine
companies face litigations settlements for false marketing, contaminated products,
fraudulent safety data, and falsifying science and kickbacks.
2- Vaccine contains harmful materials and has side effects on kids' health
2.1-AVAG studies have shown the vaccines are made from harmful ingredients,
including dangerous animal cells, metals, and aborted fetuses.
2.2- vaccine causes common complications such as multiple sclerosis, allergic
reactions, and Guillain-bare syndrome
3- Receiving some vaccines are unnecessary for infants
3.1- There is no risk of Hep B infections in newborn babies
3.1.1- Hep B is transmitted via unprotected sex and sharing infected needles
3.2- Babies receive Hep B vaccine later when they are 12-month-old
4- There is no relationship between widespread vaccination and reduction of death
4.1- Professor Fiona Stanley claimed death rate from infectious diseases were already
in steep drop when mass vaccination was introduced in the 1950s.
5- Mass vaccination increased risk of diseases compares to the past

5.1- A more significant number of cancers, developmental disorders, and allergies are
reported in children born in 1990 by an increase in dose and number of vaccinations
An Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses Found in the Argument
Main Argument
The main premises in the above standardizations seem to offer standalone
reasons. These five premises, if accepted, might provide a quite strong rationale for the
AVAG's conclusion. One of the greatest strength in the main argument is that the
deduction remains comparatively weak: it is never making a firm claim such as "kids
should never be vaccinated," however, simply that parents and guardians need to do
more research regarding vaccination before deciding to vaccinate their offspring and
should not be forced to vaccinate their kids. Therefore, the conclusion is flexible as it is
not mentioning parents should altogether reject the vaccination. Whereas the
conclusion might be backed if the premises are accepted, such an acceptance remains
contingent on the provided evidence for each in the sub-arguments.
Sub-argument Supporting 1:
Premise 1.1 provides strong evidence for the central proposition as it mentioned
doctor's knowledge is limited. However, promise 1.1.1 weaken the argument as it is
utilizing spinning term which is problematic by suggesting that doctors acquire their
knowledge from vaccine companies and being reluctant to provide any evidence
regarding doctors’ academic knowledge which is not limited to the pharmacological
company's information. Moreover, premises 1.2.1 is an argumentum AD Hominem as
the company wishes to serve their business interests, and it diverse the argument from
the rational core. Also, in premises 1.2.2 the arguer utilized weaseling term by using the
word "many" which make this promise a weak one as it does not provide strong
evidence how many of the companies turn to be a fraud. Also, some agencies ensure
that vaccines get tested and approved before being sent to the market. Therefore, this
makes this premise a weak one. Also, the premise 1.2.2.1 utilize unjustified reasoning
as is a fallacy to improper authority as it mentioned Robert F Kennedy, who is an
environmental lawyer, made a claim regarding the performance of vaccine companies.
Sub-argument supporting 2

Premise 2 does not provide a strong justification to support the conclusion as it is
argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) by referring to the child's health it wants
the parents to feel bad and hesitate to vaccinate their kids due to its side effects. Also,
in premise 2.1, the arguer provides unjustified evidence by spinning the argument and
highlighting the dangerous ingredients of the vaccine and not specifying the amount of
these materials which were used. Based on studies, the only trace amount of these
materials is utilized in the vaccine products which do not have any side effects on the
human body. Also, vaccines are mainly contains killed or weakened viruses to stimulate
the immune system to produce an antibody. Premise 2.2 is a weak argument as used
straw person fallacy which specifies the worst interpretation of side effects, while,
several vaccine studies indicate vaccines remain incredibly safe despite the implications
to the contrary in several anti-vaccine studies. This is because most of the adverse
events of the vaccines remain temporary and minor like a mild fever or sore arm, which
are just controlled by taking paracetamol following vaccination (Yvonne 2014).
Sub-argument Supporting 3
Premise 3 is weak support for the conclusion as it is utilizing the weaseling terms
by using the word "some vaccine" to say some vaccines are unnecessary and did not
specify which type of vaccines are useless. The arguer only specified a specific type of
vaccine to say it is not essential for infants and did not provide strong evidence about
other types of vaccines and not wholly reject the vaccination. Also, it used emotionally
charged language by using the word "infants" to makes parents feel some empathy
about giving the nonessential vaccine to babies. Also, it mentioned it is unnecessary for
infants and not said it is entirely superfluous for individuals with different age group.
Premise 3.1 present substantial evidence to support the central premise by
demonstrating there is no risk of Hepatitis B in newborn babies by specifying the way
that Hep B can be transmitted in promises 3.1.1. Premise 3.2 further supports premise
three by mentioning that infants will receive vaccine later in their life.
Sub-argument supporting 4