After reading the article in the New York Times, "Parkinson's Disease Drug May Help Brain Injuries, Report Says" I found that the main article actually paralleled the debate given last Monday on renewable energy sources. The argument boiled down to whether or not funding should increase in order to continue the research towards finding a cure to recovering brain injury victims that could open doors to other recovery methods and antidotes for diseases across the board. The author Benedict Carey utilized morals and value claims when inserting quotes from doctors and researchers. "Hope is critical and false hope is cruel for families dealing with this [brain injury victims]" is just one quote stated said by Susan Connors that tugs at the audiences emotions in order to persuade that we must continue researching and give it everything we can because discovering that this drug , through much research and many studies, is in fact aiding in the recovery of patients, so that we will continue to build hope for families and ends with the simple statement that this research is "a little piece of hope, the real kind." Who would want to take hope away from a disabled patient, or their family? A fact claim, "the drug showed no adverse effects" gives basis for belief that what they are researching is achieving positive progress and "positive results". Near the end of the article they also play the emotional tug of war card by talking about how with more funding families who are unable to afford the luxury of recovery would be able to take part in the wellness journey. So as the research is in the late stages of infancy it is at its most critical stages and in desperate need of funding in order to continue the "positive result[s]" in order to open doors to other cures for not only severely damaged brain injuries but other diseases across the board.