Project 2 Outline

In this post, I will start with a paragraph explaining what I learned from the reading then I will write my outline.

The reading didn't state too much information that I didn't already know. There was information about the conclusions that I knew but I've never actually applied it. It seems like all my teachers have been totally fine with minimal effort conclusions. This is a genre I am much more familiar and comfortable with than last project, so I can commit more attention to conclusions in the rough draft.

Pasternak, Leonid "The Passion of creation" 19th Century. Public domain.

Introduction

• Background information: briefly explain the rhetorical situation and the cultural ideology
• Thesis statement: Although animal testing has yielded effective drugs, the article "Of Mice or Men" by Arthur Allen uses historical evidence and experts' studies to prove that testing does not produce enough relevant results to justify the life cost of lab animals.

Body Paragraph 1

• Topic: acknowledgement of counterargument
• Evidence 1: "...it is true that animal tests, even on multiple species, do not always predict the toxicity of pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals in humans. This doesn't make animal testing any less crucial to the development and testing of drugs."
• Evidence 2: "Dogs, it turns out—usually beagles, in particular—are man's best test animal, in that the same compounds frequently sicken dogs and their masters"

Body Paragraph 2

• Topic: historical evidence
• Evidence 1: "In March, London clinicians injected six volunteers with tiny doses of TGN1412, an experimental therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis that had previously been given, with no obvious ill effects, to mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys. Within minutes, the human test subjects were writhing on the floor in agony."
• Evidence 2: "In 2003, for example, Elan Pharmaceuticals had to stop trials of an Alzheimer's vaccine that had cured the disease in "Alzheimer's mice," after the substance caused brain inflammation in human test subjects."

Body Paragraph 3

• Topic: expert studies
• Evidence 1: "Working with confidential data provided by 12 pharmaceutical companies on 150 compounds that had produced a variety of toxic effects in people, an institute-hosted workshop found that only 43 percent of the drugs produced similar problems in rodents, and 63 percent did so in nonrodents."
• Evidence 2: "One of the scientists, Ralph Heywood, stated in 1989 that 'there is no reliable way of predicting what type of toxicity will develop in different species to the same compound.'"

Conclusion

• Thesis restated
• Sum up why rhetoric is effective

Reflection

I read the posts by Nick and Alyssa again. I didn't have the foresight last RRR to check and see whose outlines weren't commented on, and after going through all blog sites in the class, Nick and Alyssa's blogs were the only two that had the outline posted and had no comments. Anyway, Nick's outline was very detailed while mine and Alyssa's were kept brief. Like Alyssa, I don't find outlines incredibly helpful but I used this assignment to find specific evidence within the text to support my claim that the rhetoric is effective. That will help me when I do my rough draft since my rhetorical analysis essays are always in the PIE format.