Daniel Cox Biology 1090 Taking Sides Issue number: 4 Are We Winning the War on Cancer?

The war on cancer has caught the eye of many individuals and to many others it remains subject to entitling itself as a controversial issue. The author John R Seffrin quotes that We are winning the war on cancer for the first time and we also know what it will take to finish the job. Now on the other half of the issue, Reynold Skeeter states There has been a very little overall progress in the war on cancer since president Nixon and congress declared it in 1971. The fallacies used by each author are engaged upon rhetoric. Using the word winning or failing in the questions represents the authors opinion as a fact. Upon reading the information I gathered two important facts presented from each side. On one end of the spectrum it is more known today about cancer than ever before. In 1913, a diagnosis of cancer was a death sentence with pain and suffering, now a lot of cancers can be cured. On the other hand, Reynold Skeeters point of view references that cancer death rate has decreased by only five percent since 1950. Children with cancer make up less than one percent of all diagnosed cancers. If we fail to intervene and do the right things, cancer will become the leading cause of death by 2018. Tobacco promotes and elevates prevention into public policy. The war on cancer failed, the principal problem of finding solution for cancer is in my understanding of causes. Now the assumption that we are winning the war on cancer in entitled as an opinion about eliminating cancer in the UA and worldwide. Being sure that tobacco directly causes cancer. Wishful thinking that is of seventy-five percent of cancer patients would survive long term. When discussing fallacies, the no side of this issue identifies a belief that expensive chemotherapeutic drugs are overused because they are expensive and profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Underestimating progress of finding out the causes of cancer also play a huge role in the underestimate of clinical trials. Author Reynold Skeeter was more impressive with his empirical presentation. He was overall more empirical in presenting different statistics using a quantitative approach to defend his thesis. Based on the presence of question framing and facts, both of them are biased. Any article is biased and subjective. People are writing the articles and they have their own vested interest in proving their respective thesis. The No side was most correct, he tries to be more objective by bringing up both sides of the argument but choosing the one he promotes.