Vaccinations and whether the act of vaccinating children should be up to parents, or whether the government should mandate vaccines, is a much debated topic. Parents say vaccines keep their children safe and prevent serious epidemics from occurring, making communities safer and healthier overall. Many public schools have already made vaccines mandatory for children to attend their schools, but many parents argue that they should have full control over decisions made about their children's health. Sandy Reider, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, wrote “The Science is Not Settled,” an article that attempts to persuade readers of how little influence vaccines really have in society and how a parent should retain the right to choose whether to vaccinate or not your child. Not. Sandy Reider successfully uses logos, along with ethics, to persuade her audience of the potential harm of mandatory vaccines. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The site where the article comes from is called Reason.com, “Free Minds and Free Markets.” While this is not a well-known source and the site provides little to no information about it, these are mostly opinion-based articles. This site also has a television show and a print magazine, along with the collection of opinion articles featured on the website. It is not a problem that the site is not well known because the articles are opinion based and many articles are written by educated and experienced men and women. This article is written by Sandy Reider, a graduate of Harvard Medical School with her masters. Sandy has her own primary care practice in Vermont and is a medical advisor to the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice, a nonprofit organization that works to defend the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Reider mainly uses a logos strategy in his article but towards the end he also uses ethos in an attempt to persuade the reader. From start to finish, the article is filled with many facts about vaccines and their history that present the logic of the argument. For example, it includes many facts like this: “Mortality due to diphtheria had decreased by 60% when vaccination was introduced in the 1920s” (Reider). Most of the article is filled with statistics related to vaccines that are effective in convincing its audience. In addition to the facts, Sandy also recognizes the other side of the issue and refutes any claims in support of mandating vaccines with more evidence on the topic. She acknowledges the argument that vaccines have played a crucial role in decreasing mortality rates for many diseases, and then moves on to current historical evidence showing that many declines in disease mortality occurred before the introduction of vaccines. Stacy's strategy of using logos proves effective and her poor use of ethics towards the end of the article also presents a compelling argument. He states: “There is a considerable difference between giving a seriously ill child a life-saving medicine of proven effectiveness versus subjecting a completely healthy child to a drug known to cause serious, or even potentially fatal, adverse effects, however small the chance. " . This concerns ethics and the question of whether it is morally right to potentially expose children to any dangers that may arise from vaccines. Making the safe assumption that the primary audience for the article is parents, this would most likely get a parent thinking.