This is the MLA citation: Flentje, Annesa, Nicholas C. Heck, and Bryan N. Cochran. "Experiences of Ex-Ex-Gay Individuals in Sexual Reorientation Therapy: Reasons for Seeking Treatment, Perceived Helpfulness and Harmfulness of Treatment, and Post-Treatment Identification." Journal of Homosexuality 61.9 (2014): 1242-268. Web.

This article is found in an academic journal, which means that it is reliable.

The psychologists behind this study and article respond to the idea that conversion therapy is useful to the lgbt+ community because through their experiment they disprove this 'logic' of the other side's arguments. They want to prove that conversion therapy causes more issues for people then if these people were able to just express their lgbt+ identities. People with extreme religious backgrounds may disagree with this article because they want to believe that even though they are putting their children in harms way through this therapy, that the end result of their children being able to live an eternal life in heaven is more important.

Through the study that these authors conducted on lgbt+ people who had underwent conversion therapy at some point of their lives, the data and quotes from these people who have experienced the harshness of the therapy, they establish pathos. Pathos is shown because these people went through traumatic events and still identify as lgbt+. This study shows that the harm that they went through to become heterosexual was not worth it in the end.

This study is interesting to me because it shows that conversion therapy may never actually work on anyone. It makes me question if there is anyone who would say that it helped them realize that they are heterosexual instead of homosexual? If there are people out there who believe conversion therapy was a good thing for their identity, are they in denial because of the pain that conversion therapy brings or did it truly change their identity? This is something I would like to investigate more with in the future.

Flent Je, Heck, and Cochran decide to use arguments of the other side's perspective in order to show that the controversy of conversion therapy has multiple arguments and sides that show the complexity of the topic at hand. This evidence is reliable because they also cite their sources and invite the other side into the conversation. It may not be a recent discovery, since Zucker's argument appeared in 2003; however, it is an excellent idea on the authors' of this article to include to show the history of the controvery of conversion therapy being used on lgbt+ individuals. Since, they include arguments of the other side, it helps establish even more ethos because they are willing to acknowledge the people who have not agreed with their views on this therapy in the past. This shows that the authors are not bias and have done research on all angles of the controversy.

This is the claim that the authors are making through their observations of the certain lgbt+ individuals that they decided to write about. They state that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and should not be treated as one, especially not with conversion therapy, since it causes the individual more pain.

Flent Je, Heck, and Cochran are the authors of this article. They are all professors in Psychology, which establishes their ethos because they are all professionals in their field of study and will be able to analyze the harmful affects of conversion therapy successfully.

The study the authors identified earlier in the paragraph is summed up excellently in this one statement. When faced with examples of the privileges of whiteness, those who identified strongly with their whiteness tended to feel threatened and insecure, consequently directing that negativity toward the outgroup.

Said in other terms, increased pride in whiteness equates to increased opposition to legislation that could negatively impact white privilege. This reminds me of the fact that most violent or murderous incidents in the news lately have been committed by white men who have considerable white pride and act out against people or groups threatening their privilege.

Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is an important and eye opening read! I was assigned to read this in a Race and Membership in American History class in high school. Here's a link to it: http://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

The authors interestingly admit that they disagree with the invisibility thesis, yet still want to discuss what it means and how credible it is. Continuing to give the audience both sides of the argument further solidifies ethos.

Before this statement, the authors are addressing what those with opposing views think about the topic of whiteness and privilege. This plays toward their ethos because it clearly outlines for the reader both sides of the issue, helping the reader to feel informed and to trust the authors to deliver credible information.

Furthermore, the authors use the terminology and apply it to their theory that when faced with evidence of white privilege, a white person will react in one of three ways, each reaction relating to their "concern for racial inequality and commitment to measures that might reduce it."

Knowles, Lowery, Chow and Unzueta give the reader vocabulary, defining and explaining the terms they use to discuss their theories. This works to hold the audience at the same academic level as the writers, assuring there is nothing lost in translation, so to speak.

The authors directly address their claim in this statement. Beginning the article with the reference to Ebony magazine vaguely introduces the topic of discussion, then by the end of the second paragraph it is understood by the audience what the intention and argument of the article is.

Knowles, E. D., B. S. Lowery, R. M. Chow, and M. M. Unzueta. "Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity." Perspectives on Psychological Science 9.6 (2014): 594-609. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The main author seems to be Eric D. Knowles. Knowles is an associate professor of Psychology at New York University. You can find a list of his publications with his contact information here: https://psych.nyu.edu/knowles/

The journal this article is published in, Perspectives on Psychological Science, is a bimonthly publication that is peer-reviewed and contains a wide variety of content. View the description by the parent company SAGE Journals: http://pps.sagepub.com/

Again these are claims without any evidence. How do we know that many animals in factory farms do not have tumors because we do not see them and many tumors on larger animals are not easily visible.

Now this just doesn't make sense. Something designed to kill another living organism is somehow considered safe to consumer for humans?

I agree that this does not add up, but also I think that it is implausible that such a large number of the rats developed such significant and life threatening just because of their breed.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/

The author of the study that they are criticizing has his own website. It honestly does not look very credible, but I have not read the information that he has provided regarding the study he conducted.

This article continually makes claims that are not supported. I am confused as to if they expect their readers to go and research the claims they are making or if they expect them to believe them without evidence.

This journal is attempting to claim that there was some duplicitous motive to the study they are critiquing. Kind of unnerving that it feels like they have to defend the standards of regulations on GM foods.

The bias in this paper is palpable. If they were simply reporting facts and left out the claims that the this study was "erroneous" without first supplying proof then I would trust this article much more.

Claiming that nations that are "competent" because they agree with the authors of this article is extremely biased and an unsound claim.

Off the bat the source they cite does not appear credible, they reference a study that the company itself (Monsanto) conducted that had different results than an independent study.

The claim for this article is that another study has had many inaccuracies that have led the public to distrust GM foods. The "they" that they are refuting is the people who have read and trust the conclusions presented by the article they are attempting to disprove in this article.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manuel_Portero-Otin

This author appears qualified and has some other articles he has published on different topics.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Gemma%20Arj%C3%B3%22

This author appears to have several articles on the safety of GM foods showing she already has a set opinion on this topic.

Arjó, Gemma, Manuel Portero, Carme Piñol, Juan Viñas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, and Paul Christou. "Plurality of Opinion, Scientific Discourse and Pseudoscience: An in Depth Analysis of the Séralini Et Al. Study Claiming That Roundup™ Ready Corn or the Herbicide Roundup™ Cause Cancer in Rats." Transgenic Research 22.2 (2013): 255-67. Springer Link. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

They found that the planet is composed mostly of liquid, and that it has a magnetic field like Earth. This hinted at Jupiter’s composition and the possibility of a solid core. They also got a close look at Jupiter’s clouds – from 26,000 miles (about 42,000 km) – to determine weather patterns. With the Launch of Juno the scientists expect to find out a lot about the planets origin, structure, gravitational and magnetic fields and its atmosphere. This success with Jupiter is making scientists think about what is next: a mission to pluto. New Horizons, the rover to pluto, was able to capture data from Jupiter during a flyby. It recorded that 36 volcanoes on jupiter were very similar to those we see here on earth. Just imagine, A rover in space, not even touching the planet or anything, was able to record all of this data during a flyby. Technology certainly has come a long way since pioneer 10 ( one of the first missions to Jupiter)

The authors of the article are three journalists from The New York Times, Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman. The main focus on this article are the strategies used by opponents Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to prepare for their debate. The authors’ claims are that their strategies reveal their own personal strengths and opponents weaknesses. Both candidates do their research on each other. Clinton and her team did months of research on Trump to ensure that she will get under his skin at this debate. Trump as well has been doing his research by watching videos of Clinton to figure out her vulnerabilities. The candidates plan to use what they find out to attack their opponent at the debate. The answer to my question,”why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”, is that they believe these strategies will help them look better at the debate. The people that would disagree with this would be people on either party voting for the opposite opponent. It would make a Trump or Clinton supporter angry to see the ways the opponent is playing dirty, because they want their candidate to win. The article is fairly new which makes it more credible, but The New York Times is a more liberal news source. This could create bias because they could try to make Trump look worse than Hilary due to their own political preference. Although they do seem credible in the way that they equally talk about each party. They do not just talk about one, in each section they have a paragraph for each candidate. This article would appeal to either party because it shows the strategies of each party rather than just one. Both parties would be interested in finding out what their preferred candidate is going to do to win. People voting want who they vote for to win.

deBoer, Frederik. "Admitting that White Privilege Helps You is Really Just Congratulating Yourself." The Washington Post 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

A solution is being alluded to here, but a solution that may not be enacted.

Perfect way to articulate this. Here he is addressing his audience, those who are interested in the topic and those who fall under the category of boasting privileged people.

Very much so agree. Here, deBoer is addressing the hypocrisy and stagnancy of self-recognition within white privilege that retains white supremacy. When the oppressed are heard when they voice their dissatisfaction with oppression, it is deemed as their duty to do such: it is their job to fight for their rights. However, if a privileged person recognizes their role in oppression, they are praised for doing such just as they were unconsciously praised for not to anything...because that's the way that privilege works.

Well articulated. As he further states within his article, the form of "self-indictment" places the "guilty" on a pedestal of approval and "self-regard".

Liberation for the liberated and oppression for the oppressed it seems like. In other words, the self-awareness made him feel liberated in such a redundant way that it wouldn't make a difference if he proudly boasted as someone who does not have privilege and equality is attainable by all. Either way, nothing really changes.

I agree. The question there here would be what can the privileged to acknowledge, yet not boast in self awareness, about their privilege.

Acknowledging the side that he is going to criticize for its legitimacy gives him some credibility.

This is his claim. I am using this perspective because it differs so much from any other perspective. There is the audience that altogether does not acknowledge that white-privilege exists. There is the audience like myself that pushes for white privilege recognition. And there is his perspective that disapproves of both so far.

Fredrik deBoer is "writer and a researcher who works at the intersection of writing assessment, applied linguistics and literacy education." He receives his authority from an institution of learning to write his opinion for public consumption. http://purdue.academia.edu/FredrikdeBoer

Amanda was previously a senior engagement editor for ProPublica. She has worked as an editorial aide and reporter in the past.

Senior reporter at ProPublica. Lauren has reported on a range of topics from criminal justice to this article about the drought.

Author of several articles about the drought and other water problems and possible solutions throughout the Midwest.

Lustgarten, Abrahm, Lauren Kirchner, and Amanda Zamora. "California's Drought Is Part of a Much Bigger Water Crisis." Scientific American. ProPublica, n.d. Web. 20 July 2016.

EU has been blind to the situation of immigration in the UK, and this has been a huge mistake on the part of the EU. When 55% of the population in the capital of the UK is not of British origin (whatever the passport is), you clearly have reached a limit. The day 55% of Berliners are not German or 55% of Romans are not Italian you will see an even stronger reaction. The EU should have acknowledged the peculiar situation of the UK (historical immigration plus fresh immigration from the EU plus fresh immigration from the rest of the world) and granted the country a special status with regard to freedom of movement within the Union. And we know very well that enabling the citizens of East European countries whose per capita GDP was half that of the West to move freely across the continent was a big blunder, and a demonstration that the EU sometimes defends more the interests of large entrepreneurs who need cheap labor than the interests of citizens.

What has happened now, particularly in non-London England is very distressing. It is understandable that in some towns and cities that people have been left behind and there is a lot of real poverty. That did not apply to prosperous towns in the Home Counties.Something very ugly is happening in England. Perhaps it was always there, lurking, and the referendum has opened the box. People in the prosperous counties such as Essex and Herts voted in great swathes for Leave. These areas don't have a mass immigration or suffer from major crises. There was broadly an inverse relationship between those voting Brexit and the immigration numbers.

British manufacturing relies heavily on imported components and commodities, and the price of those just jumped. The effect of exchange rates on exports is often exaggerated. Much British manufacturing, such as cars, is here because manufacturing them in the EU wins EU subsidies and tax breaks. Not any more. Manufacturers wanting to serve the EU market will not be making them in Britain any more, the same goes for other goods. Finally, tariffs on manufactured good, most of which get sold to the EU, are only going to go up. There will be some winners and some losers in manufacturing out of this but it's by no means a simple win.

The pound falling, credit rating declines, short-term balance of payment issues and interest rate increases are expected results. At this point, fearful readers seem to be looking only at these short-term effects and panicking. If the new government acts decisively takes a firm path towards a dynamic economy, the pains should be limited to the short-to-medium-term and Scotland and Ireland would be very receptive to staying within the UK if and only if the UK demonstrates that it can quickly reboot its economy.

Buttonwood columnist considers the ever-changing financial markets. Brokerage was once conducted under a buttonwood tree on Wall Street.

Space X ends the article by describing a third and final product, the Grasshopper. I believe Space X was wise to end the article this way. Although this rocket did not reach as high a distance, the composition of the rocket sounds a lot more impressive. They explain that the Grasshopper was a larger vehicle .They also explain that it was a better comparison to the type of rocket that NASA would use. It contains an engine, and "support structure" on top of the rocket, which makes it appear to be more of the type of craft we think of when talking about NASA. By doing so, Space X makes their product appear to be more of the complete package. They describe only the successes they had with the Grasshopper, in an effort to appease their possible customers.

As stated previously, this is not an article that could be considered a scholarly article. IT is mostly a large product pitch to people interested in space exploration. They do use facts, and it is accurate information as it is coming from the people in charge of the rockets, but it is biased. However, it shows that one possible solution to funding NASA as much as we do is to privatize part of the work, or at least find a way to reuse parts of the missions to reduce cost.

Space X now shows some successful attempts, to prove that they will reach their goal. They talk about a second product they have that uses a different form of lander. By doing so, they show that there is more than one option for these forms of rockets. They attempt to make the distance sound more impressive, as saying 1000 meters is a lot more impressive sounding than a single kilometer.

Space X does a really good job of explaining its advancements and how it is going about creating the rocket. They describe how they first made rockets that could get to space, then began working on making those that could be landed properly. Space X explains their first attempt made it to the target, but crashed into it instead of landing. However, they actually never say that they failed, just that it "landed hard". This makes it sound as if they were successful, when they actually were not. They do the same when explaining the second failed attempt. By saying that it was extreme weather that caused the failure, they are stating it was not their fault. This is an excellent business technique as it still makes it sound as if their product will work as it has been designed to do.

Space X states that they are working on creating the rocket that is designed to be used over and over again. They do state that they have not fully created the rocket yet, but are in the process of doing so. This is to ensure their possible customers that the product is being created and not to search for other possibilities while it is being created.

Space X uses one of the best ways to show the cost effectiveness of their product that I can ever seen. They describe that the cost of a commercial airliner is about the same as the rocket for a space-destined vehicle. However, the commercial airliner is used thousands of times before going out of service, while the rocket is only used once. By stating this, the audience can see that the cost effectiveness is so much better if the rocket can become reusable. This is where Space X's product would come in.

The wording used is very important. It does not attempt to supply the belief as a fact. It is simply stating that this is what the company as a whole believes. However, Space X also repeats the benefit to its product, which makes sure that this is clear in the audiences mind. One of the biggest issues people have with NASA is that their money is being taxed to fund them. By offering a technology that will reduce those costs, your average citizen may be more supporting if they believe that they will not have to pay as much for the program.

This is a quote from Elon Musk. Musk is the founder and owner of the Space X company. It is a very important quote because it does several things. It describes the main mission of space X that is currently going on. By doing so, we know exactly where the company is coming from. It also talks about the benefit of what it is working on, most importantly the cost cutting it could do to the space program. It also clearly demonstrates the article's audience. The audience are those interested in the product of reusable rockets who may want to purchase the technology, as well as educating the public to what the product means to the industry.

"Reusiability: The Key To Making Human Life Multi-Planetary." Space X. 10 June. 2015 Web. 10 July. 2016.

The fist thing that must be said is that this article is not fully scholarly. It is informative, but biased. It does not have a specific author and it comes from a company that is attempting to sell a product. However, there is an incredibly important reason for using this article; it supplies a possible solution to the funding of NASA. As a result, it is a different stakeholder position from the previous article.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while discussing their claim and presenting relevant and supportive information.

Here they use ethos by discussing information that was presented in another scholarly article, increasing their credibility on the topic the are about to address in this next section of their journal. They bring in information from many outside sources throughout their entire journal to support their claim.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto address the stakeholder position of future generations and how the excess CO2 emissions will effect them. They talk about how our future generations will have to bear the burden of things such as dealing with the consequences of a warmer climate and contaminated water sources. While there are some solutions to this problem, Nusbaumer and Matsumoto bring up the questions of how much excess CO2 is too much? And once it reaches a certain point is it even possible that the affects can be reversed let alone fixed? These and many more are all questions future generations will be forced to deal with due to our generations actions, or lack of.

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8 ) (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Two outside sources that were helpful during this article. Because it is an academic journal, the authors used a lot of vocabulary that is not commonly known. I found myself looking up a lot of words and using the dictionary for definitions.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto use logos to appeal to their audience. While they have provided many numbers and statistics throughout their journal so far, here they implement graphs to give their audience a visual representation of some of the data they have been discussing and how it can be applied.

I think this is where the authors are articulating their claim; that the addition of CO2 into our environment can have many harmful effects however it can affect many different people, animals, ecosystems, etc. negatively and that many groups are having difficulty coming to a consensus on this and their values.

Nusbaumer, Jesse, and Katsumi Matsumoto. "Climate and Carbon Cycle Changes under the Overshoot Scenario." Global and Planetary Change 62.1-2 (2008): 164-72. Web.

This is an academic journal. Academic journals are very reliable sources because they are written by credible authors who attempt to remain objective while discussing their claim. This article is written by two authors, one from Perdue and one from the University of Minnesota.

This paragraph is a good example of how these contracts work. It talks about a decision made in the United States v. Paramount Pictures which ended up to be landmark. Paramount Pictures was forced to restructure the whole company which resulted in no more long term contracts with actors. Instead Paramount has to hire actors for each individual film and all the actors that were under contract became free agents. This seems like it would be a good thing but because the actors were freed from the contract, they no longer had the protection or support from the company. Because of this, people had to depend on something else entirely to protect their identities.

This scenario is probably a lot more common then people think. It matches up almost perfectly to what Kesha is going through. When someone is in a contract, it seems like not only do you lose your right of publicity, but you also lost your individuality and originality. What is going on with Kesha currently is proof that this does exist and it does happen.

Here, Coyle suggests a new way to study the right of publicity. He's talking about contracts within the entertainment industry which lines up with Kesha's situation. It seems like Coyle is saying that while in a contract, one loses their right to publicity in a way.

This is the author's claim, some could argue that there is a solid foundation for the right of publicity. The definition of the right of publicity stated in the first sentence of the introduction gives a pretty concise idea what that is so there could be room for debate about whether or not it could be explained better. The author is letting the reader know that the paper will be about his view about what he thinks a better way to perceive the right of publicity is.

"Bklyn Law Review - Brooklyn Law School Law Journals: Impact Factors And Citations - Libguides At Brooklyn Law School". Guides.brooklaw.edu. N. p., 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“The Brooklyn Law Review is a scholarly journal of analysis and commentary covering a broad range of current legal issues. The flagship journal of Brooklyn Law School, it has 77 volumes (one a year) dating back to 1932.”

Again gives very little information, but shows that she has background in vector work.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constancia_Ayres/info

This is all of the information I can find on this author as I do not speak Spanish and her bio is published in a Brazilian University Biology department. She has 45 publications and 1450 reads. With this extent in popularity she must be a credible author as she has been able to get 45 papers published which is not an easy task.

She backs up the Logos she made in the previous statement with the use of Ethos, explaining the difference between a carrier and a vector of the virus and giving a clear example. She presents the example in a way that the reader can understand whether or not the reader has a background in science. This source is a heavily research based article and there is not a lot of audience appeal as Constância F J Ayres is really just stating the facts and research.

In this paragraph the author both ties her research back to her original claim and states what is important to consider moving forward in the fight against this virus. She makes the point that the world must not overlook other possible vectors as it could lead to the continual spread and lack of control of this very infectious virus.

Author addresses the counter argument for her claim in this statement as it is possible that these organisms that carry the disease are not able to transmit it to another host rather they are just infected with it.

The author exhibits Ethos here as she supports her claim that there are many carriers of this disease including several different types of mosquitoes. She uses other experts to appear more credible by presenting their research in a way that it applies to her claim that there are many vectors of the virus.

The author/authors represent PBS which has always been on the conservation side of things. They do have a good track record of looking at more then one angle whether they are objective or not. This line represents that clearly. Science will provide the answers. And in this case science somewhat supports both sides of the arguments.

It is impossible to get a credible stakeholder side of this argument from the pro Rhino horn market. I had to choose this article because it was the only one with some facts supporting Asian medicine and its use of Rhino horn.

The Author is definitely against the use of Rhino horn, but is just objective enough or has read "I Say They Say" to incorporate a bit of scientific fact about the horns use in medicine. The claim is not well stated but when you think about the article as a whole, the claim is : Yes there is a small merit to Eastern medicine's use of the Rhino horn for certain ailments, but the dosage amount to yield actual results is not practical and not practiced.

On a personal belief: The human brain is an amazing thing, it has power that we cannot harness as of now. What we do have is the placebo effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo. Our thoughts can be so powerful that we think we are better and sometimes that's all we need to become better. A lot of old medicine revolves around this. You take something so rare and unique and say it has these powers, you have to believe, at least a little, because you don't know. It then makes it's own belief and spreads and maybe if you can get some it will work, even if you know it doesn't, you worked so hard to get it or have given so much to get it, you can't just admit that it doesn't work so you say, "yes, it really works." and this just keeps perpetuating itself until the resource is wiped out.

This is a very good conclusion for this article. It give science backed facts that support the idea of Rhino horn use in medicine, but explains it is not relevant or practical, even if its true.

The last sentence ends it with the perfect amount of tone and truth. Chewing on you fingernails would be the same dose and affect of being prescribed Rhino horn.

"Rhino Horn Use: Fact vs. Fiction" PBS. August 20 2010. Web. March 5 2016. <www.pbs.org>

"What" is also being stated is the economists believing there to be a correlation between opinion and discourse on the subject to be related. There are differing conceptions of how this hypothesis should be portrayed. For example some believe that the more talked about the subject, the more the people engaged will have the same belief. However, on the other hand, there is differing belief that engaging in public discourse is separate in relationship to one's political stance/party. Therefore Shreck and Vedlitz, are hoping to determine a correlation in the relation in public discourse and personal opinion/ belief. This however, is to be looked at when controls on societal, economic, and environments roles are still in action.

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.

I do believe, to a certain extent, that wolves do not need as much protection as they once had. Wolf conservation programs and organizations have done so much over the past decades to ensure their survival. However, that does not mean I am trustful of states to be able to properly and legally regulate appropriate wolf hunting.

Morell gives the reader(s) many facts and quotes from reliable sources to let them think of their own opinions themselves. Without giving any bias, Morell's credibility skyrockets, in my book, because she doesn't give any "hints" or suggestions to the reader(s) to either side.

A quote directly states how the removal of wolves could be detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole.

Morell is giving logos and ethos. I am still not sure of her claim. Her article doesn't seem to have one. She gives no clues on whether or not she supports wolves or not. She is just stating facts.

Morrell is very nonbiased in this article. Throughout the paper, she gives no hints on whether she is biased or not. From her previous articles however, you see a trend of all her works being about animals.

Author gives first hint to the argument, though the claim is not too clear. Though the title is very open and non-bias.

This shows Morell's argument of the back-and-forth war of wolf conservation.

Recent updates and publications. The credibility and reliability of the site is a scholarly source.

Morell, Virginia. "Judge Returns Great Lakes Wolves to Endangered Species List." Science, AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 22 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

The authors claim that Zika virus leads to not only microcephaly, but also Hydrops fetalis which occurs when abnormal amounts of fluid build up in two or more body areas of a fetus or newborn.

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.