The author addresses an important counter-argument that the mosquitoes are not in their maximum capacity during the time of the Carnival, but quickly counters this by stating that it takes just a few infections to cause an outbreak in a new area.

Authors state the issue that they are reporting on the virus' major outbreak area.

This is the authors' claim as they believe that the meeting of massive amounts of people for the Olympic games in Brazil could prompt the spread of this virus worldwide.

The authors exhibit ethos as they show the exact scale of the gathering of people in the coming years. They show that millions of people will be gathering in close proximity in various locations around the world. If the virus infects travelers coming to Brazil for the Rio Carnival or for the summer Olympics then the spread of the virus to the traveler's homeland is likely. This poses big problems for the world as the virus could spread worldwide very easily with the infection of mosquitoes in areas that didn't originally have the virus. An example of this would be if someone from Egypt were to go and be a spectator at the Olympic games and were to get bitten by a mosquito carrying the virus. If the now infected Egyptian were to travel back home and get bit by a domestic Egyptian mosquito then now the mosquito would contract the virus. The mosquito would continue to feed on people all the while spreading the disease to these unsuspecting hosts. All of these newly infected hosts are bitten by different mosquitoes and the trend continues. The mosquitoes also would be reproducing during this time and creating massive amounts of Zika vectors. There is a clear snowball effect here as this new hypothetical area has become a new ground-zero for the virus on another continent.

Elachola, Habida, et al. "A Crucial Time For Public Health Preparedness: Zika Virus And The 2016 Olympics, Umrah, And Hajj." Lancet 387.10019 (2016): 630-632. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Shows that the journal has some history and has had enough popularity to stay around for nearly 200 years.

The journal is focused on all things science and medical. The Lancet umbrellas multiple different journals that are specific to different subjects such as pathology, neurophysiology etc.

http://www.thelancet.com/about-us

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.

This quote can be used to showcase the exact severity of the disease as health officials are not just advising that people try and stay safe from contracting the disease, but also advising that they refrain from getting pregnant. This is due to the fact that there is an anticipated risk that the pregnant women in these areas may contract or already have contracted the disease. This also addresses what the government is saying. By issuing this statement the governments of these regions are not only indicating that there is a risk of Zika infection, but they are also indicating that the populous is not in control of whether or not they will contract the virus. If the government thought the disease were preventable by the civilians' efforts to stay safe then they would have released a statement indicating people to remain extra safe during pregnancy or if there is risk women may become pregnant. This is a showcase of how the Virus' spread is actually not able to be contolled by the people.

Ingrid Torjesen's claim is that this outbreak of Zika virus that is currently occurring in the Americas (primarily South America) is something that the world should be incredibly concerned about.

The Author brings the statement of the World Health Organization's director general to support her claim and justify the exact severity of this outbreak. The quoted Margaret Chan also speaks to the fact that a direct linkage of the disease during pregnancy to microcephaly has not yet been established, but it is largely observed and should also be worried about. Linkage of microcephaly would appear in the form of birth defects, neurological problems, and death of a newborn baby that has been affected by this disease. Microcephaly would also include linkage to Guillain-Barre.

Torjesen, Ingrid. "Zika Virus Outbreaks Prompt Warnings To Pregnant Women." BMJ: British Medical Journal 352.8042 (2016): i500-2. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

Good question from Wallace as it addresses one of Trump's biggest criticisms: his bluntness and insults towards anyone who critiques him.

Koenig isn't necessarily putting words in Becky's mouth, but the trouble is that Koenig is the one that tells this part of the story and Becky only responds that it "sounds" right in a hesitant tone. If it were insisted by the interviewer, in the same way this previous statement was, that Adnan jumped in her car and went, which is contrary to the real statement, Would she also agree and say that it "sounds" right? It is unclear if Becky truly does remember it like that or if she is simply agreeing to a statement that sounds like it would be correct. If the interviewer asked Becky to report this part herself rather than restating it to her then the testomony would be more strong.

Koenig writes this statement to reiterate that there were no obvious motives or intentions that the state accused him of having. Jay and the State prosecution are the only people whom have testified against Adnan and indicate that he is the killer. This could all be speculation as they have included many interviews of people who say he wouldn't have done it, but they could be excluding classmates or other people's statements that say he could have killed her. These would be excluded to both build a better story (for the listeners) or to build a stronger defense.

This ambiguous timeline that keeps coming up is very important to the case as there truly is not one person who knows exactly where Adnan was during the time of the murder. That's not to say he didn't do it, it just makes solving this case so much harder. Without a timeline that is probable the state will deny that Adnan was confirmed in the library because the memory is both 15 years ago and Asia could have motivation to lie to protect her friend.

njgrindy: Nick Grindy