Running Head Argumentative Essay .docx

Running Head: Argumentative Essay
1
Is Formula Bad for Babies
Jaden Thomas
PHI103: Informal Logic
Prof. VanZanten
May 6th 2019
Is Formula Bad for Babies?
- 1 -
1
1. This paper is not properly
formatted for APA. There are
issues with the title page,
header, font+size, spacing or
margins. It may also have
issues with citations and
references.

For additional information,
please visit the Ashford
Writing Center located at
https://awc.ashford/edu,
where you will find the APA
Guides tab. A great guide is:
http://writingcenter.ashford.ed
u/apa-formatting-word-2013.
[Joel VanZanten]
Argumentative Essay
2
Introduction
The selection of what to give to an infant depends on a number
of factors. While doctors
strongly recommend that women should exclusively breastfeed
their children until they are six
months old, some women have medical conditions and other
reasons that cannot enable them
achieve this obligation. However, the use of formula on babies

has been debated and subjected to
strong arguments by advocates and proponents of it. For
instance a mother may not be in a
position to produce enough milk that will meet all the needs of
the child. In addition, women
who have the HIV virus cannot breastfeed their children directly
and this makes them resort to
formula or cow milk. The health experts advise mothers to
breastfeed and when they cannot
adequately met the breastfeeding requirements they can use
formula.
Presentation of argument
According to a research that compared human milk with infant
formula by the national
academy of sciences, the lack of adequate feed for bay presents
a distressing situation for
mothers. Babies cry when they are hungry. Use of formula is
thus a relief for mothers who
cannot meet the nutritional needs for their babies. Formula is
healthier than cow milk and some
formula are iron-fortified which provides baby with extra iron
for their growth (Press, 2004).
Many formulas are manufactured to supply baby with almost all
the nutrients that mothers milk

supply to them. Using formula is a flexible feeding method that
is increased as baby weights
increases. Unlike breast milk whose supply is constant and
cannot be increased as baby grows,
formula is given to baby depending on the amount of feed
required. Formulas for babies are
available in the market and vary in form and prices. For
example, The Ready-to-Use is the most
expensive that does not need any mixing by the caregiver,
Concentrated Liquid is less expensive
- 2 -
1
2 3
1. What is your specific
research question? The
week 1 instructions asked
you to take the topic from the
final paper topics list and then
from that topic develop a
specific research question

that is important for this topic.
It isn't clear that this prework
has been done in this paper,
and I simply don't know what
specific research question
you are addressing in this
paper. [Joel VanZanten]
2. These arguments are not in
standard argument form.
This was a main requirement
for this paper, and missing it
is a big problem.
A standard argument form is
an outline that lists the
premises and the conclusion.
Using standard form helps to
provide the argument in a
format where it is clear,

concise and easier to see the
patterns and structure of
reasoning. [Joel VanZanten]
3. You should do more to
introduce the source: what is
the title, who wrote it, who
published it, when was it
published, etc...
At this point, I don't know
anything about this article.
After introducing it, you
should try to summarize the
key points made in this
source. [Joel VanZanten]
Argumentative Essay
3
and requires to be diluted according with an equal amount of
water and Powder is the cheapest

and requires one scoop to be mixed with two ounces of water
and the mixture stirred well before
feeding the baby. The availability of variety provides all classes
of consumers with a selection as
far as formula is concerned.
Premises: Formula used to supplement breast milk and can be
considered as the next
healthy alternative that offers babies the nutrients they need to
grow. The argument held in this
article is that while formula may not match the health benefits
associated with breast milk, they
supply the most vital components that a baby needs to grow.
The author, being a scholar unlike,
an author who works for a manufacturing industry is in a better
position to present a neutral
argument that does not favor either side of the debate.
The conclusion is that formula is not bad for babies. The
negative impacts directed
towards the use of formula result from the uninformed and
unwise giving of formula to babies
based on time and not on their demand. In addition, the author
concluded that compared with
cow milk, formula provides a better choice for women who
cannot breast feed their children

either due to medical reasons or due to work demands. The
author points out that federal
regulation on the infant’s formula composition makes the
formula safe for use and hence the
conclusion that formula is not bad for use in feeding babies
(Press, 2004).
Presentation of an opposing argument
According to research by Camilia R. Martin, Pei-Ra Ling, and
George L. Blackburn that
studied and reviewed infant feeding by assessing key features of
breast milk and infant formula
found that formula is an inferior method of supplying nutrients
to babies (Camilia R. Martin,
2016). Secondly, the use of formula prompts mothers to
abandon breastfeeding while breast milk
- 3 -
1
2
1. There is too much going on
in this argument - it isn't
focused?

This argument presentation
could be improved. Your job
is to identify all of the main
evidence in the article that
supports the article's position
and faithfully reconstruct the
article's argument. That
probably won't involve
EVERYTHING that the author
writes about in the article.
That's okay, your job is to
identify the relevant evidence
as "premises" and include the
conclusion (labeled as
conclusion). [Joel
VanZanten]
2. You haven't evaluated the
reasoning in this article.

What do you think are the
strengths or weaknesses of
this type of reasoning? Do
you think research would
back up these claims and
premises? Do these
premises lend support for the
conclusion? Are there any
fallacies? [Joel VanZanten]
Argumentative Essay
4
is the best source of nutrients for babies that supplies proteins,
minerals and energy in the right
proportions. Formulas for babies are associated with allergies
and are an expensive method of
feeding. The use of formula on babies has been linked to
obesity and body weight disorders due
to overfeeding disproportionately mixed nutrients. The use of
formula prevents babies from
bonding with their mothers. It is possible to make wrong

preparations when using formula that is
not ready to use and this can be dangerous for babies. This is
true especially for the illiterate
mothers and for the less cautious caregivers.
Premises: the arguments that human milk is far much better than
formula is based on the
scientific analysis of the composition of human milk and
formula. According to the author
human milk is composed of 87% water, 3.8% fat, 1.0% protein,
and 7% lactose. Fat and lactose,
respectively, provide 50% and 40% of the total energy of the
milk which makes it more balanced
and thus a better source of nutrients for babies (Camilia R.
Martin, 2016). Formula on the other
hand is assumed to substitute human milk by mimicking the
composition with respect to
nutrition. The food and drug administration has enacted a rule
that regulates the production
processes and require formula manufacturers to meet certain
regulation standards (Camilia R.
Martin, 2016). However, the author mentions that formula are
only helpful for the healthy and
normal babies but cannot sufficiently meet the nutritional needs
for children with medical and

dietary disorders.
Conclusion: The author does not point clearly that it is bad to
give formula because he
mentions that it is the only healthy choice available for a baby
that cannot directly feed on their
mother. However, the author demonstrates a strong negative
perception of formula based on its
nutritional value compared with human milk.
- 4 -
1
1. Putting this argument in
standard form would help you
engage in a fuller evaluation.
What sort of argument is this?
Is it deductive or inductive?
Answering these basic
questions about the structure
of the argument is a key way
of beginning to evaluate the

quality of the reasoning, and
not just the quality of the
evidence. [Joel VanZanten]
Argumentative Essay
5
Evaluation of arguments
The arguments used against the use of formula are entirely
based on a medically proven
evidence of the nutritional values of human milk when
compared with the formula while
arguments for use of formula are strongly based on convenience
and availability of the formula
to babies who cannot feed on breast milk. In addition,
arguments for use of formula have
declined to compare the health benefits of formula compared
with breast milk but do so in
comparison with cow milk. To a given extent, this may be
considered to be an agreement that
despite the fact that formula mimics human milk by
composition it does not meet the quality of
human milk. Secondly, formula may not be bad but it can never
be a choice in situations where

human milk is available. Arguments against the use of formula
have a strong foundation on
scientific evidence and have the strong back up from medical
practitioners’ point of view who
advocate for breast milk all the way. The use of an argument by
referring to an authority provides
stronger grounds for arguing. It is impossible to completely
term formula as bad for babies but
the fact remains, formula is the healthy choice is the absence of
human milk. Advocates for
formula have failed to convince the audience that formula can
be chosen over human milk. The
mention of allergies in opposing formula is enough reason to
disregard the use of formula for
babies who can breastfeed.
Conclusion
Formula is not bad for babies. But in the scenario where a
mother can adequately meet
the feed needs of her infants, it is advisable to breastfeed and to
avoid formula. If a mother
cannot breastfeed her child then donor milk or formula is the
next healthy choice instead of cow
milk.

- 5 -
1
2
1. Your evaluation of the
reasoning in this argument
should be improved.
Consider these questions:
What do you think are the
strengths or weaknesses of
this type of reasoning? Do
you think research would
back up these claims and
premises? Do these
premises lend support for the
conclusion? Are there any
fallacies? [Joel VanZanten]
2. You are missing a
discussion of the difference in

the quality of reasoning
between the non-scholarly
sources (week 1) and the
scholarly sources (week 3).
This was a central
requirement of this paper.
You haven't explored how this
activity and evaluation of the
differences in quality between
scholarly and non-scholarly
sources will influence your
future research. [Joel
VanZanten]
Argumentative Essay
6
Reference
Camilia R. Martin, P.-R. L. (2016). Review of Infant Feeding:
Key Features of Breast Milk and

Infant Formula. NCBI-Nutrients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882692/
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Evaluation of the
Addition of Ingredients New to
Infant Formula. Infant Formula: Evaluating the Safety of New
Ingredients. Washington
(DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. 3, Comparing
Infant Formulas with Human
Milk. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215837/
- 6 -
[no notes on this page]
Running head: IS MARIJUANA USE SAFE? 1
IS MARIJUANA USE SAFE? 6
Is Marijuana Use Safe? Comment by Foster, Christopher:
Begin with a title page, formatted according to APA standards
Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103: Informal Logic

Ashford University
Modeled example for the final paper assignment
In recent years, many states have voted to legalize marijuana,
both for medical and recreational uses, with other states
possibly following suit in the future (Sanders, 2018). However,
federal law still prohibits the use or sale of marijuana in the
United States. With the recent decision by the Justice
department to crack down on marijuana distribution in states
with legalized marijuana (Johnson, 2018), the question returns
of whether those federal laws have real medical science on their
side, or whether they are relics of the politics of a bygone era
(Ripley, 2017). This paper will begin to explore the specific
question of whether marijuana use is harmful to health. It will
present a strong argument that marijuana is relatively safe and a
strong argument that it is unacceptably dangerous. This will be
followed by an analysis of the merits of reasoning and support
provided by each. Comment by Foster, Christopher: A good
intro paragraph should close with a preview of that the paper
will accomplish.
Argument that Marijuana Use is Safe Comment by Foster,
Christopher: It is good to have clear section headings, showing
your instructor exactly where you accomplish each of the main
elements of the assignment instructions.
Premise 1: Many studies have been done on the safety of
marijuana use, and pooling their data creates a large and
reliable data set from which to determine the effects of
marijuana usage (Grant, Gonzales, Carey, Natarajan, &
Wolfson, 2003). Comment by Foster, Christopher: The
clearest way to express an argument is by putting it into
standard form, with each premise clearly labeled and listed
above the conclusion. Comment by Foster, Christopher:
Though the premises and conclusion of your argument are in
your own words, specific sources of information need to be
cited.
Premise 2: Pooling the data from studies on the effects of

marijuana usage shows no significant cognitive impairment in
reaction time, attention, language, executive function,
perceptual function, and motor skills in marijuana users (2003).
Premise 3: Meta-data showed minor cognitive impairment from
long term marijuana only in the areas of learning and memory,
but these were minor and can be minimized (e.g., in a medical
context) (2003).
Premise 4: Marijuana has beneficial uses that outweigh its
minor harms (Wetterau, 2015).Comment by Foster, Christopher:
All premises and conclusions should be one sentence each.
Premise 5: If a substance has beneficial uses that outweigh its
harms then its use is acceptably safe. Comment by Foster,
Christopher: This premise provides a link to the conclusion. It
makes it so that if the above conditions are met, then the
conclusion follows.
Conclusion: Marijuana use is acceptably safe. Comment by
Foster, Christopher: The premises and conclusion of your
arguments for this paper are supposed to be in your own words.
Based on your research, you are presenting the best reasoning
that you can on each side. Any words that are not your own
need to be put in quotation marks and the source should be
cited.
Support for the Argument that Marijuana is Safe Comment by
Foster, Christopher: The best section headings are as clear as
possible about what will be covered in that section.
A giant meta-study pooled data from many research studies of
the effects of marijuana use and determined that marijuana use
did not result in significant change in performance in six of
eight cognitive areas (Grant et al., 2003). Because the study
considered all relevant research studies and had a large data
pool, these results can be considered reliable. Thus, there is
substantial support for the first two premises of the argument.
Comment by Foster, Christopher: The point of this section
is to demonstrate that the premises of your argument are true.
This can involve citing the sources that you used in your
previous paper(s) and/or adding new supporting sources. For

your argument to be good, there must be good support for its
premises.
The two areas in which there was a decrease in function,
learning and memory, showed relatively minor effects, which
could be mitigated, for example, in medical contexts. For
example, the declines were the result of long term and/or recent
use of marijuana. Casual users or medical users may not
experience even those minor declines in performance (Grant et
al., 2003).
There are many documented medical benefits from marijuana
use, including for nausea, AIDS, chemotherapy, arthritis,
inflammatory bowel disease, MS, and Huntington’s disease. The
risks of harm from the use of a potentially addictive drug can be
mitigated with proper precautions from a physician (Wetterau,
2015).
The fifth premise is difficult to prove specifically because of
different possible interpretations of what it means for something
to be ‘acceptably’ safe. However, various academic articles
support the idea that marijuana’s level of risk is within
acceptable limits. Some argue, for example, that it is safer than
alcohol and even some foods (Americans for Safe Access,
2018), so if those substances are considered safe enough to be
legal, then perhaps marijuana should be too.
Furthermore, one can weigh the harms of its use against the
harms of its criminalization. One author, for example, reasons,
“Given that marijuana's harms appear to be relatively small,
though, advocates argue that, even if legalization leads to more
pot use, it's worth the benefit of reducing incarceration and
crippling violent drug cartels financed in part by revenue from
illicit weed sales” (Lopez, 2018). Therefore, one can reason, its
use is safe relative to the harms of its prohibition, and therefore
that constitutes an acceptable level of risk. Comment by
Foster, Christopher: Since the final premise’s truth is partly
semantic in nature, I am supporting it with reasoning that
justifies the relevant concept of ‘acceptable’ risk. Comment by
Foster, Christopher: Now all of the premises have been

supported with a combination of research and reasoning.
Argument that Marijuana Use is Unsafe Comment by Foster,
Christopher: One of the goals of a critical thinker is to make
sure to understand the reasoning on all sides of a question as
well as possible. Therefore, it is essential to present the
strongest reasoning that we can find/think of in support of both
sides of our question.
Premise 1: Marijuana is an addictive substance (Volkow, Baler,
Compton, & Weiss, 2014).
Premise 2: Marijuana use causes long term negative effects on
physical and mental health (Feeney & Kampman, 2016).
Comment by Foster, Christopher: These premises
summarize much of your research in your own words.
Premise 3: Marijuana use causes elevated driving risks (Neavyn,
Blohm, Babu, & Bird, 2014).
Premise 4: Marijuana use among adolescents is correlated with
lower academic achievement, job performance, and social
functioning (Palamar et al., 2014).
Premise 5: It is unsafe to use substances that are addictive and
that have many negative effects. Comment by Foster,
Christopher: This premise provides a link from the points made
in the first premises to the language of the conclusion.
Conclusion: It is unsafe to use Marijuana.
Support for the Argument that Marijuana is Unsafe
The first four premises of the argument are supported by studies
indicating each of the effects in question. The degree to which
these effects depend upon the quantity and duration of use,
along with the age of the user and recentness of use is still an
open question. However, the multiple studies cited do seem to
support strongly the idea that the use of this substance can
cause lasting harm. Comment by Foster, Christopher: Word
count limits (and common sense) indicate that it is not always
necessary to go into depth about each premise separately, but
one can support more than one premise at a time like this, or
one can focus one’s attention on the most important or
controversial premises.

The fifth premise links the facts given in the first four premises
to the language of the conclusion. It shows that any substance
that has the properties demonstrated in the first premises will
qualify as unsafe, thus demonstrating the truth of the
conclusion. Furthermore, the fifth premise makes a substantial
point that weighs against even medical uses of the product.
Though the consequences of strictly medical uses may be
relatively minor, if a product is addictive and has harmful
consequences, then users are likely to continue to use it beyond
its medicinal value, resulting in long term harms (Wetterau,
2015). Comment by Foster, Christopher: This paragraph puts
extra focus on a key premise, showing why it is important for
supporting the conclusion and for its implications beyond the
argument itself.
The fact that there have been demonstrated risks associated with
the use of marijuana indicates that researchers should caution
against the legalization of the product, especially since its
legalization could to lead to greater social acceptability and
more widespread use, especially among teens. Seen in this light,
these harms become quite significant and suggestion strong
caution against the legalization and use of the substance.
Comment by Foster, Christopher: As noted, the goal is to
support each side as strongly as possible prior to the analysis.
Analysis of the Reasoning on Both Sides
As noted, both arguments have premises that are supported by
substantial scholarly research. Both arguments additionally
provide strong support for the truth of their conclusions. Each
even includes a premise that links the factual claims made in the
previous premises to the specific judgment made by the
conclusion, resulting in powerful support for the truth of each
conclusion. However, their conclusions make opposite points,
resulting in an apparent contradiction. There is a good question,
therefore, of how to determine which of these conclusions is
most likely to be true.
There are several factors that can be used to explain this strong
evidence for opposite conclusions. One is that authors, even

authors of scholarly meta-studies, are frequently going to put
more focus on studies whose results tend to support the
conclusions that they personally support. Furthermore, each
study will focus on factors that strengthen the case for its
preferred side. For example, a scholar whose research supports
the use of marijuana might focus on mitigating factors such as
the fact that dosages can be carefully controlled in a medical
setting. Researchers on the side of the opposition, on the other
hand, may emphasize that addicted users are likely to use the
substance in doses well beyond those recommended by
physicians. Comment by Foster, Christopher: The purpose of
this section is to have a substantive discussion about the
reasoning on both sides of the issue. This example goes beyond
merely addressing a list of questions and focuses on deeper
issues surrounding the strength of reasoning in the relevant
sources. Comment by Foster, Christopher: Specific examples
can help to clarify and strengthen key points.
Given the fact that even scholars can approach such issues from
biased points of view, it is difficult to arrive at one and only
one ‘objective fact’ about whether marijuana use is acceptably
safe or unacceptably dangerous. However, study of scholarly
sources on both sides of this issue allows critical thinkers to be
more aware of the types of risks and benefits and to be able to
weigh the concerns for and against the use of the substance as
objectively as one can. Use of non-scholarly sources, by
contrast, can lead one to partisan advocacy in which one is not
as objectively aware of the substantive considerations on both
sides of the question.
Having studies both sides of this question, my own evaluation
of the research indicates that long term marijuana use, or use at
a young age, can have deleterious health consequences.
However, use by adults in the limited context of medical
application can have benefits that render the risks acceptable
(Grant et al., 2003). Furthermore, in a medical setting, the use
is typically controlled, temporary, and supervised by a
physician. Therefore, the level of risks in these contexts,

especially when contrasted with those of many other legal
prescription drugs, may fall within an acceptable range.
Comment by Foster, Christopher: The point of this
assignment is not to ‘take sides’ but rather to critically examine
the best reasoning on more than one side. However, analysis of
which conclusion is most strongly supported by the evidence is
appropriate here.
Conclusion
It is common for people to be wedded to a position and to
seek evidence only to support their side. However, in pursuit of
truth, critical thinkers make a point of understanding the best
arguments on all sides of important questions. This allows them
to be more informed and also more fair-minded, open to
changing their views to whichever position most aligns with the
best evidence.
Having researched the topic of marijuana use, I have found
strong support for contrasting positions. On the one hand, there
appears to be strong evidence for some potential harms
associated with long term use of the substance. On the other
hand, when it comes to medical applications, which tend to be
short term and in which there are real medical benefits, these
risks may fall within acceptable limits. Comment by Foster,
Christopher: A simple concluding paragraph summarizes what
has been learned and reaffirms key conclusions.
References
Americans for Safe Access (2018). Cannabis safety. Retrieved
from http://www.safeaccessnow.org/cannabis_safety
Comment by Foster, Christopher: Use APA formatting for
all references.
Feeney, K. E., & Kampman, K. M. (2016). Adverse effects of
marijuana use. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(2), 174-178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2016.1175707
Grant, I., Gonzales, R., Carey, C. L., Natarajan, L., & Wolfson,
T. (2003). Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of
cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the

International Neuropsychological Society,9(5), 679-689.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617703950016
Lopez, G. (2018). Marijuana is a relatively safe drug—with
some risks. Retrieved from
https://www.vox.com/cards/marijuana-legalization/health-
effects-marijuana
Neavyn, M. J., Blohm, E., Babu, K. M., & Bird, S. B.
(2014). Medical marijuana and driving: A review. Journal of
Medical Toxicology 10(3), 269-279.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-014-0393-4
Palamar, J. J., Fenstermaker, M., Kamboukos, D., Ompad, D.
C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman, M. (2014). Adverse
psychosocial outcomes associated with drug use among US high
school seniors: A comparison of alcohol and
marijuana. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(6),
438-446. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.943371
Ripley, E. (2017, December 20). Why is marijuana illegal? A
look at the history of MJ in America. Retrieved from
https://news.medicalmarijuanainc.com/the-road-to-prohibition-
why-did-america-make-marijuana-illegal-in-the-first-place/
Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R.
B. (2014). Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New
England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2219-2227.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1402309
Wetterau, N. (2015). Medical marijuana—Can we do no harm?
Family Doctor: A Journal of the New York State Academy of
Family Physicians, 3(3), 16-20. Retrieved from
http://www.nysafp.org/News/Family-Doctor-A-Journal-for-the-
NYSAFP

Running Head Argumentative Essay .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head Argumentative Essay .docx

Similar to Running Head Argumentative Essay .docx (20)

More from toddr4

More from toddr4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head Argumentative Essay .docx