October 15, 2004


1. One can connect history papers and convincing papers. To do this, they must side with one side of the controversy. They can argue about their side, which should be represented by history. To do this, the person must develop good reasoning along with having facts.
2. By the early 1940s, human clinical investigation strongly indicated that asbestos caused cancer. However, animal studies repeatedly failed to demonstrate this, and proper workplace precautions were not instituted in the U.S. until decades later. Similarly, human population studies have shown a clear risk from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation from diagnostic X-rays and nuclear wastes, but contradictory animal studies have stalled proper warnings and regulations. Likewise, while the connection between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis is indisputable in humans, repeated efforts to produce cirrhosis by excessive alcohol ingestion have failed in all nonhuman animals except baboons, and even the baboon data is inconsistent.
3. They use this section to relate history with their argument. They set up what happened on a previous date and the discuss it. They prove why it is invalid based on other history. Thus, they argue their point.
4. There are a few problems that I can see. One would be that no everyone thinks the same way, therefore, the controversy might not affect everyone the same. Another would be that some history could be made up to help out with their arguments. Overall, the idea of people not agreeing is what makes the idea in questions a controversy.

Posted by rohd0038 at October 15, 2004 11:16 AM