Vaccinations and the question of whether the act of vaccinating children should be the responsibility of their parents, or whether the government should mandate vaccines, is a much-discussed subject. Parents argue that vaccines keep their children safe and prevent serious outbreaks, generally making communities safer and healthier. Many public schools have already made vaccinations mandatory for a child to attend their school, but many parents say they should have complete control over decisions made regarding their child's health. Harvard Medical School graduate Sandy Reider wrote "The Science is Not Settled," an article that attempts to persuade readers of how little influence vaccines actually have in society and how a parent should keep their right to choose whether their child will be vaccinated or not. not. Sandy Reider successfully uses logos, as well as philosophy, to persuade her audience of the potential dangers of making vaccines mandatory. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The site where the article came from is called Reason.com, “Free Minds and Free Markets.” Although this is not a well-known source and the site provides little to no information about them, they are primarily opinion articles. This site also has a television show and a print magazine, as well as a collection of opinion articles found throughout the website. It is not a concern that the site is not very well known as the articles are opinion based and many articles are written by well educated and experienced men and women. This article is written by Sandy Reider, a Harvard Medical School graduate with a master's degree. Sandy owns her own primary care practice in Vermont and is the medical advisor to the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Reider primarily uses a logo strategy in his article. but towards the end she also uses ethos to try to persuade the reader. From start to finish, the article is packed with numerous facts about vaccines and their history presenting the logic of the subject. For example, it includes many facts like this: "Mortality from diphtheria had fallen by sixty percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s" (Reider). The majority of the article is filled with vaccine statistics that manage to convince its audience. In addition to the facts, Sandy also acknowledges the other side of the argument and refutes any claims in favor of mandatory vaccination with more evidence on the subject. It acknowledges the argument that vaccines have played a crucial role in decreasing the mortality rate for many diseases, then builds on current historical evidence that many declines in mortality for diseases occurred before the introduction of vaccines. Stacy's strategy of using logos proves effective and her little use of ethos towards the end of the article also makes a compelling argument. She says: “There is a considerable difference between giving a seriously ill child a medicine that has proven to work and subjecting a perfectly healthy child to a medicine that is known to cause serious, even life-threatening, side effects. however low the risk. » . This concerns ethics and whether it is morally right to expose.