Instructions

Respond to at least two of your peers' posts in a substantive manner. "I agree" or "Good point" are not accepted as substantive responses to your peers.

what can you say on their post ?

1. The article "The American healthcare industry is killing people" can be improved by a more informative educational tone compared to the current tone presented. The writer seemed very biased with the information he gave, and the questions that he asked through the essay were geared for his own agenda. We would remove all the questions because it makes the article argumentative. The flow of the paper is inconsistent, and his sentences were not properly structured missing complete thoughts. The author is not a statistical analysist and writes for an opinion list column. Lastly the author could have added a current statistic for a more valid article.

The claim does need qualifiers and evidence to support the argument. The opposing views were not fairly presented because the author is very biased about debt collecting and other problems of the healthcare system. Although the author mentions Canada and their healthcare system, he lacked evidence in how both healthcare's differ. The statistics that were discussed were over 20 years ago since this was written in 2019.

These revisions we will utilize in our future careers as nurses for educating patients properly. We could recommend proper articles and even help explain to them why their information can be incorrect. Educating patients, co-workers, and even loved ones this skill will be utilized.

2. After reading the article, "Why It's Wrong to Blame Mass Killings on Mental Illness", by Meg Kissinger (2019), we believe that it was missing statistics, specific percentages, and numbers relating to mass shootings. We think that the article should remove the paragraph starting with "These are the problems that reporters should be pressing politicians on" (Kissinger, 2019). This should be removed as it's appealing to emotion, but it is not genuinely related to the topic of the article, as focus is being put on the decisions of Donald Trump.

The claim is in the title of the article, where the qualifier is stated as, "Many, if not most, perpetrators do not have a major psychiatric disorder ..." (Kissinger, 2019). The qualifier words are "many" and "if not most". More evidence is needed with statistical data to support the claim. The only piece of statistical data we located in the article was, " ... spent the past two years building a database of more than 50 years of mass shootings" (Kissinger, 2019). Statistical data was solely found in one paragraph of the article, where bias could've been prevented and the claim could be fairly addressed, such as giving examples of mass shootings. The article doesn't address opposing views, where it specifically involves the author's beliefs with the perpetrator. We believe revisions are influential for our nursing career, as these skills will carry with us in identifying the claim of an article, locating the three appeals, and address areas needed for improvement. In our everyday life as a nurse, we will need to try and convince or argue specific viewpoints with the best interest of the patient.