The author concurs with Garland-Thomson’s argument that ability-selective abortion is unethical because it is a kind of set of discriminatory attitudes and practices against disabled people. Also, she claims that it should be a very deliberative process about considering their choices to terminate a pregnancy for anti-abortion movement.

These are a series of tweets written by Nicole Cliffe who is the editor of The Toast and the mother of a special needs child. I can read her feeling of frustration about raising a child with a complex impairment. In my opinion, the government cannot force women to bring children with disabilities without enough financial aid, education, and services.

The author claims that social welfare system for the handicapped should promote to establish a society which treasures life and does not throw it away simply because of fetal abnormalities.

This sentence shows one of the most awkward and uncomfortable truth in our society. No parents are prepared or would want to have a disabled child.

The author criticizes sharply against abortion rights advocates. They have bias against the disabled that their quality of life would be lower than the non-disabled.

The author states with the authority of Rosemarie Garland-Thomson who is a professor of English at Emory University and a pioneer of the discipline of disability studies. Disabilities’ reproductive coercion in historical event arouses the audience’s sympathy by using pathos. Her delivery is effective because she make an emotional appeal to emphasize the right of the disabled.

In the outbreak of Zika virus, the author raises a problem about an upcoming clash between the abortion rights and the disability rights. She claims that rights of disabilities to exist should be respected and should not be violated by the rights of a woman to have abortion.

The author brings up a subject that Zika virus and abortion is not just Latin America issue, but also the United States. This sentences are coded criticisms against the U.S government which has been silent on Zika virus issue.

The author exemplifies one country in Latin America how El Salvador takes emergency steps to deal with Zika virus. The government of El Salvador suggest women to delay their pregnancy until 2018. In my opinion, they show an irresponsible attitude about the current state of affairs. They should provide necessary information, education, and contraceptives for their nation to avoid pregnancy.

The title of the article stimulates audience’s curiosity how Zika virus leads to collision course between abortion right and disability right.

Latin America which has a serious medical problem due to Zika virus and the United States are geographically close. The author predicts that Zika virus will make hundreds or thousands of fetus with microcephaly in the U.S when mosquito seasons arrive. Also, she states that Zika virus will arouse controversy about abortion right because abortion laws vary in each state.

The authors are forecasting that Zika virus will bring about large numbers of abortions and stillbirths in infected pregnant women across the Americas and Caribbean. The authors stand neuter about the abortion issue.

The authors acknowledge their research have a problem which is difficult to generalize from a single example. The purpose of the investigation aims at raising public awareness about the risk of Zika virus to fetal.

This sentence indicates that abnormal fetus infected Zika virus can identify after 18 weeks gestation. Abortion at this point in a pregnancy is rare and hard to come by. Therefore, it makes more difficult to have abortion.

That is why Zika virus is dangerous to pregnant women because they are hard to notice whether they are infected or not.

In its final analysis, the authors state a hypothesis that Zika virus could lead to hydrops fetalis and fetal demise by using a research.

This is the major core content in the Scholarly Journal that finds the connection between Zika and microcephaly based on a case study from a Brazil Woman. While reading article, the audience can easily find difference between Popular Articles and Scholarly article. It is written by researchers and scholars from various medical institution, generally uses scholarly language such as ZIKV(zika virus), Hydrops, and Hydranencephaly. Also, it includes full citations on the bottom of article. Therefore, it is more difficult to appeal to the general public than Popular Article, but it includes accurate evidences which are actual ultrasound views and gives an exact definition about Zika virus by developing logos.

The authors attached four abnormal fetal ultrasound views in the article, so it gain credibility from the audience by using the viewable evidences. Also, it can help the audience better understand their main hypothesis.

Zika virus have been reported with the increase in microcephaly more than 4,500 cases. Therefore, it is highly possible with the connection between Zika and microcephaly.

The authors emphasize that Zika virus is not only problem of Brazil, but also entire Americas.

The authors suggest their theory and point out that Zika virus is a devastating disease to fetus because it can lead to fetal demise.

This is background of the scholarly journal that Zika virus and microcephaly would have some connection.

The authors report a case of a 20-year-old woman who was referred to their service after Zika virus outbreak. An induced labor was performed at the 32 weeks due to fetal demise. The authors formulate a hypothesis that Zika virus infection may have relevance to stillbirths. Although it has some persuasive points, their delivery could have been effective by developing more evidences. They commit the logical fallacy called sweeping generalization. It is nonsense to generalize to use just one case of stillbirth. To gain credibility, they need to find more examples about the case.

Most of the audience already acknowledge a correlation between Zika virus and Microcephaly. The authors calculate that Zika virus may result in other possible harmful effects on fetus.

The author gives directly her argument that women should manage not only contraceptives, but also abortion. She claims that abortion is a right.

It shows poor women’s reality in Brazil that they have little opportunity to get a birth defect examination whether their fetus is infected by Zika virus or not in public health clinics. The author urges the government to provide financial support and social medical services for the poor women.

In this sentence, the author premises her main argument that women need to be given the power to have safe and legal abortion.

Although abortion is illegal in Brazil, wealthy woman can have an abortion in protected and safe conditions. It is a striking contrast from women in poverty who does not have enough money to get a secure abortion. The audience reconfirm the true picture of Brazil’s severe social inequality phenomenon.

The author claims that Brazil prohibits abortion in law, but 25% of Brazilian women had received an abortion at least one time in illegal and dangerous conditions. Though she has some persuasive points, her delivery could have been more effective by suggesting accurate evidences. She bases her argument on a national survey, but she does not state what exact name of the survey is or how many participants were enrolled in. Her lack of evidence discredits her claim and it cannot satisfy the needs of her audience who want to an accurate information about Brazil. Therefore, the author should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos.

The author presents a problem that Brazil government’s action against Zika virus. She criticizes their short-range policy which urges women not to fall pregnant without providing any education or information about birth control methods.

Brazil is one of the countries which have worst gap between the rich and the poor in the world. The author claims that Zika virus is a key indicator about social inequality of Brazil. Young, poor, black and brown women who live close to slum area are exposed to great danger of Zika. Also, they have fewer opportunities to access to sexual and reproductive health care. It is heart-breaking to me that the women who live in underprivileged backgrounds are also troubled with the epidemic. Brazil government should prepare measures not only focus on focuses on Zika, but also resolve social inequality in a long-term policy.

It is a very interesting fact that the affluent area in Brazil is perfectly safe from Zika virus, but the author does not give any evidence about it. It lacks of audience appeals and she should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos. She just relies on her ethos at this point. Although the topic is Zika virus and Brazilian women’s right to choose, she has the Brazil Olympics 2016 in mind and indirectly promotes that Brasilia which is the capital of Brazil is not dangerous at all.

What authority the author speaks is her ethos. She can observe current Zika virus problem in the immediate vicinity, Brazil. So, she looks deeper into the problem with a different perspective than other authors. The audience may think her article is more credible than others because of her nationality, Brazilian.

In my opinion, I find this to be a good audience appeal. Although, some might say this information discredits the ethos of the study, I believe it helps in showing that more information is needed to find out clearer results. The authors establish ethos by showing that this subject needs more study to further understand its results. The fact that they want to further their research and keep looking into the subject is great and shows their true interest in the subject.

Interesting perspective. Although people might engage in conversation about climate change the real debate needs to be on policy implementation to help change the problem, not on the problem itself.

Shreck, Brian, and Arnold Vedlitz. "The Public And Its Climate: Exploring The Relationship Between Public Discourse And Opinion On Global Warming." Society & Natural Resources 29.5 (2016): 509-524. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.

Within Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, Shreck and Vedlitz claim that there appears to be a positive association between people engaging in conversation about climate change and the strong belief that climate change actually exists. They go on to further state that this conversation about climate change is occurring on both sides of the debate spectrum, which later will force both sides to address the issue.

Brian Shreck is a joint appointment in the Department of Political Science and the National Wind Institute. He focuses his area of study specifically on wind energy and public policy. I see him as being highly qualified as he is at Texas Tech University as a Postdoctoral Research Scholar. He obviously has credibility on the subject of climate change and how it is being addressed throughout society. http://perg-tamu.com/people/brian-shreck

Furthermore, Shreck's co author Arnold Vedlitz is obviously just as qualified as him, as he is "holder of the Bob Bullock Chair in Government and Public Policy and director of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (ISTPP) in the Bush School of Government and Public Service". He has done a lot throughout his career pertaining to the environment which only adds to his credibility. http://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/avedlitz/

This point is a good way to increase credibility as the authors are addressing that people should listen to and welcome refutations of the arguments. Therefore, every aspect of the argument is addressed.

I would be interested in seeing the survey. I want to know if the same size was large enough to constitute the results of the survey. Who received the survey? Are the questions potentially biased?

This is an interesting point. Because very little people are engaging in conversation about climate change currently, would increasing talk about climate change only cause more polarization on the subject or bring a new light to the subject?

Here is what "they" are saying. Shreck and Vedlitz are saying that in order for this issue to be truly understood it needs to be looked at two ways. First, is that people need to have an open-mind. One must consider the other sides perspectives and stay impressionable to the argument being made. Second, people need to realize that in order to engage in deliberative democratic theory they must have an active, engaged, and knowledgeable political entity that will consider all ideas equally and will reconsider its existing ideas in the face of new evidence or arguments.Because of this, they will be exposed to new information and ideas which will either help deepen their initial position or help sway them in the opposite direction.

This source might help me going forward with research because it is showing me how one thing can effect everything. It is a chain of both societal and environmental impacts. I should research the effects on each chain if climate change continues to be a big problem.

This is a global solution. It helps to see how solutions to the problems with effect a global audience rather than just a local one. This helps to show the big picture for Meng' s work.

I would be interested in researching other solutions that could be used to reach a more global audience as well.

This is also an audience appeal as he is showing how Meng's innovations are universally helpful. He is working to better the world, not just a specific nation.

Ruan, Dylan. "The Carbon Market and Global Climate Issues." Santa Barbara Independent 1 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web.

Ruan claims that UCSB's Kyle Meng is focusing on creating a future where "climate change is battled with market-based solutions". Moreover, that climate change can be addressed using environmental economics.

By showing a possible solution to the problem, Ruan establishes early on the credibility in Meng's work. His solution is backed by his vast understanding of economics as he explains to the audience how it would benefit society to put a price of pollution. In doing this, reduction of activity would occur, in turn causing carbon emissions to become reduced.

This is what "they" are saying. Ruan is articulating Meng's philosophy to the audience. Meng, who is well versed in economics and the environment, specifically climate change and market-based solutions, is showing how we can use the market to help fix the environment. Meng addresses primarily two ways economics can be used to bring communities together to reduce emissions. He also addresses environmental effects like El Nino that can have dramatic repercussions if not properly analyzed and helped.

Another example to help establish credibility falls within Meng's research of a past climate change event, El Nino. Most of the time to better gain understanding of a particular problem and its solutions, a person should look at the past to address what worked and what didn't. This will save both time and money and help in deciding future actions of climate change.

I would be interested in further researching potential conflicts between tropical nations. How prevalent has this issue been and has it ended up causing big conflicts in the past?

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Backlash Against Serial -- and Why It's Wrong." The Atlantic. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Friedersdorf's claim is in the title: he argues that Koenig did a good job of reporting in Serial and that we should focus on the larger issue of making sure the truth is out there in order to get, in this example, justice for both Hae and Adnan.

Friedersdorf establishes credibility by referencing commenters on Kang's article as well as an author from The New York Observer, thereby making me trust that others hold his opinion as well. However, I wonder how cherry picked the quotes from the comments section are. I checked and there were a few who agreed with Kang's analysis.

Nice job of getting some refutations out there early on. This helps establish ethos in that Friedersdorf appears to be self-aware, although, as I pointed out in an earlier annotation, he is not entirely self-aware because he ignores his own point that there is usually some grain of truth in criticisms about white reporter privilege.

I agree with this point, and it's something I need to do further research on. After reading the article in full, I don't think Friedersdorf acknowledges what Koneig could learn from her critics. Instead, he focuses on undermining Kang's concerns about Serial. In my opinion, the takeaway for Koenig is to be more mindful of race and culture in her reporting, and to be sure to refer to credible authorities when she may not fully understand.

Friedersdorf tries to establish credibility right away by acknowledging the value in Kang's concerns.

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. "Conor Friedersdorf"

The Atlantic is a well-known magazine (a reliable popular source) known as "high quality review with a moderate worldview."

One of the oldest and most respected of American reviews, The Atlantic Monthly was founded in 1857 by Moses Dresser Phillips and Francis H. Underwood. It has long been noted for the quality of its fiction and general articles, contributed by a long line of distinguished editors and authors.

Here Friedersdorf gets to what's at stake in the big picture: according to Friedersdorf, it's important that people's stories are told. The truth needs to be out there, and it's dangerous to make reporters feel scared to tell someone else's story.

Good questions here. I don't know where I stand on the issue and need to do further research. Just because This American Life is doing a better job than some news outlets doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for its failings.

Nice refutation here. Friedersdorf acknowledges that there is a wider problem with white reporter privilege, just not as much in this case.

It's a good idea to accept Kang's speculation even after disproving it because it shows that Friedersdorf is unbiased and truly taking Kang's opinion into account.

This is useful to see how someone calls an author out for a logical fallacy. It undermines Kang's ethos, the "they" to whom Friedersdorf is responding.