| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Get control of your email attachments. Connect all your Gmail accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize your file attachments. You can also connect Dokkio to Drive, Dropbox, and Slack. Sign up for free.

View
 

Paul's 4-5 Reverse Outline and Abstract

Page history last edited by Jared 8 years, 7 months ago

Feedback: paul.mp3

 

Links to my drafts:

 

Project 4- Paul's Project 4 Rough Draft

 

Project 5- Response 13 - Gene Therapy

 

Evaluation Outline

 

Intro

Says: Death is bad, and gene therapy can help by preventing and eradicating certain diseases and improving lives.

Does: Establishes pathos and common ground by stating that everyone has been through the death of a loved one.

 

First Body

Says: Describes somatic gene therapy and how it works.

Does: Gives a background and builds my ethos.

 

Second Body

Says: Describes out-of-the-body somatic therapy and how it works.

Does: Builds background and ethos. Also gives a case about the success of such treatment, building logos.

 

Third Body

Says: Describing HGGM and how it works.

Does: Background and ethos still.

 

Fourth Body

Says: Gives examples of diseases that are curable or preventable by gene therapy

Does: Discusses first and second criteria.

 

Fifth Body

Says: Patients can have happier and easier lives with gene therapy treatments.

Does: Discusses third criteria, gives a case study, builds logos.

 

Sixth Body

Says: There are also failures, such as the case of Jesse Gelsinger.

Does: Establishes common ground and acknowledges opposing side through a case study.

 

Seventh Body

Says: There are other concerns from anti-gene therapy communities, such as "playing God" and "the slippery slope."

Does: Establishes more common ground by presenting opposing arguments and then breaking one of them down.

 

Eighth Body

Says: The slippery slope Wharam describes could present a problem, but will most likely be prevented by future regulation.

Does: Establishes common ground with opposition still by acknowledging potential problems.

 

Closing

Says: Gene therapy can be a good thing if done right.

Does: Restates thesis, has common ground, ends on a poetic note (bonus points! :P).

 

 

Proposal Outline

 

Intro

Says: This paragraph gives the criteria of my proposal plan and introduces the topic.

Does: This paragraph introduces the topic and criteria, as well as building ethos by appealing to the audience's sense that medicine can be unsafe.

 

First Body

Says: Discusses my first criteria and how therapy could be acquired if my plan went through.

Does: Build logos by discussing how government-funded agencies for gene therapy review would increase ease and speed with witch patients could be treated. Logos is additionally reinforced with the malpractice bit.

 

Second Body

Says: Not a whole lot. Patients should only be able to get gene therapy drugs with a doctor's prescription.

Does: Not really anything at this point, other than introducing the main point of my second criteria.

 

Third Body:

Says: Allowing the commercial sale of gene therapies could lead to increased abuse and harm.

Does: Establishes more ethos in that the audience would not want harm to come from therapies, which is one of the main points of my paragraph. Could also appeal to pathos, if the reader has had a similar experience with over the counter drugs or alcohol.

 

Abstract

 

We should care about gene therapy and how it will be handled in the future because it will soon be a normal form of treatment for thousands of people. The problem I am addressing is how it should be handled in the future as a standard in medicine, and I aim to plan how it should be available, to whom, and why it should stay medical as opposed to becoming commercialized. I evaluate gene therapy through the use of descriptive backgrounds and examples or cases of gene therapies that have already been done. I use case studies and facts to help argue why gene therapy should be regulated and monitored specifically for medical purposes. In conclusion, I will give examples of regulations that make sense as gene therapy research progresses.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.