Thompson supports this by using the anecdotal story of discovering penicillin. According to the story Ernest Duchesne, the original discoverer of penicillin conducted an experiment on a series of animals where he eventually found what is now a form of modern penicillin. His research disappeared and it would take thirty-two years for Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming to rediscover penicillin (60). This story on the surface substantiates Thompson’s claim because such a huge opportunity was missed in the medical field, but he uses an example that is not as applicable to the reader’s own …show more content…
The studies were some of the stronger supporting evidence pieces in his work, but I feel like he didn’t make them into concrete examples. For instance, the Vanderbilt study he cited left to many unanswered questions that may leave his argument a little week. When using children, you are able to get a lot of straight forward answers, but not too many answers on why they may have reacted that way. Also, children have such diverse personalities at that age, so using separate groups of children for each test doesn’t give you an overall conclusion. If the study would have used the same children for all three test, that may have been a more concrete example to use in this case. He did find strength in some of the personally testimonies, or ethos appeals that he used. Having people who are the top in their field can really add to the credibility of the entire piece, and Thompson did well there.
Overall, Thompson definitely appeals to the millennial generation in his work. Personally, following blogs is one of the several ways I get information on new releases, reviews, or just products I’m interested in, and in this way I see how the audience affect is significant in the niche I’m a part of in the blogging community. Though some of his claims are sufficiently backed by strong evidence, he fails to do so in some places, causing his argument to