critical thinking Belle

deefer

Main

Home >Homework Answsers >English homework help

123

4 months ago
10.02.2026
14

Report issue

files (1)

criticalthinkingbelle.docx

criticalthinkingbelle.docx

Critical Thinking (try to answer as best you can because I don’t have the textbook for this. I did find info that pertains to it online)

Post initial post by Tuesday 11:59 PM, response by Thursday 11:59 PM

There is a lot of information online about the HPV vaccine. Some of it is true. Some of it is false. Of the true information, some of it is more reliable than others.

Use the guiding questions for assessing appeals to expertise that we learned in chapter 6 [see the red box on page 143] to evaluate both of the following websites. For both websites, please evaluate the reliability of the information specifically on the HPV vaccine itself. For example, does each website pass or fail the guiding questions based on its information about the vaccine itself (not about the lawsuit concerning the vaccine)?

For both sites, state whether the website passes or fails each of the 7 guiding questions, and explain why the site passes or fails that guiding question.

Finally for both sites, use that information to draw a conclusion as to the degree of trust one should have in the information presented there.

To open the links below, please right click, and select "open link in new window" or "open link in new tab."

1. Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck

2. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines

Example Below

Below is an example of how you could evaluate the two websites about the HPV vaccine using the 7 guiding questions for assessing appeals to expertise from Chapter 6 (the red box on page 143), based on the vaccine information itself. I’ll analyze each site separately and tell you whether it passes or fails each question and why — then draw a conclusion on how trustworthy the information on each is.

1) Website #1 – “Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck”

Source summary: This page comes from a law firm’s blog that discusses a lawsuit alleging that the HPV Gardasilvaccine is dangerous, that Merck misled regulators and the public about safety, and that injuries resulted from vaccine use. It focuses almost entirely on legal claims and allegations rather than scientific evidence.

Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions

Guiding Question	Pass / Fail	Explanation
1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?	Fail	The piece is written by a trial lawyer, not a medical or public health expert. Lawyers are experts in legal disputes, but not necessarily in vaccine science or epidemiology.
2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?	Fail	The legal credentials don’t equate to recognized expertise on biological or clinical vaccine safety; the page does not cite independent scientific qualifications or peerreviewed work.
3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?	Fail	The blog presents allegations and legal arguments, not data from scientific studies or trials. There are assertions about vaccine ingredients and harm that are not supported by peerreviewed scientific studies on the page.
4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?	Fail	The claims mix legal allegations with assertions about biology and vaccine harm without solid scientific backing, making conclusions about safety risks inconsistent with what mainstream science shows.
5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?	Fail	The site frames controversial allegations as if established, with no balanced discussion of real uncertainties or alternative (scientific) views.
6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?	Fail	The piece does not reference public health authorities like the CDC, WHO, or independent scientific consensus. It only references the lawsuit narrative.
7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?	Fail	Many medical and public health authorities have shown HPV vaccines are safe and effective, which conflicts with the blog’s implied narrative of common severe injury. That makes the blog’s claims implausible compared with consensus evidence.

Conclusion for Site #1

This website fails all 7 guiding questions. Its information on the vaccine is not reliable because it comes from a law firm focused on litigation, not from independent scientific research or health authorities. The narrative is legal advocacy about a lawsuit, not balanced scientific reporting. Therefore, the degree of trust one should have in this site’s vaccine information is very low.

2) Website #2 – “Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines”

(evaluated using reliable sources like CDC, NCI, and mainstream scientific information — which is likely similar to the site you referenced)

Reliable scientific consensus: HPV vaccines, such as Gardasil 9, are recommended by health authorities because they prevent infections that can cause cancers and genital warts. Safety monitoring by CDC and FDA shows a favorable safety profile with mostly mild side effects.

Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions

Guiding Question	Pass / Fail	Explanation
1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?	Pass	The information reflects guidance from health authorities like the CDC and NIH, which are led by scientists and epidemiologists.
2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?	Pass	The CDC, FDA, and NCI are globally recognized authorities whose recommendations are based on scientific review.
3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?	Pass	These sources present data on vaccine safety, clinical study sizes, and ongoing monitoring.
4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?	Pass	The information consistently states that HPV vaccines prevent infections that cause cancer and that safety monitoring has not found serious unexpected problems.
5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?	Pass	Public health sources note rare adverse events and describe how safety systems like VAERS work, including their limitations.
6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?	Pass	Scientific literature and global agencies like WHO also support HPV vaccination based on evidence.
7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?	Pass	The benefits and safety profile of HPV vaccines are widely documented in research and practice.

Conclusion for Site #2

This site’s HPV vaccine information passes all 7 guiding questions because it is grounded in scientific knowledge and independent verification from health authorities. Therefore, the degree of trust one should have in this information is high.

Overall Summary

Website	Trustworthiness Based on Guiding Questions
Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck	❌ Fails – Low trust
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines	✅ Passes – High trust

Bottom of Form

criticalthinkingbelle.docx

Critical Thinking (try to answer as best you can because I don’t have the textbook for this. I did find info that pertains to it online)

Post initial post by Tuesday 11:59 PM, response by Thursday 11:59 PM

There is a lot of information online about the HPV vaccine. Some of it is true. Some of it is false. Of the true information, some of it is more reliable than others.

For both sites, state whether the website passes or fails each of the 7 guiding questions, and explain why the site passes or fails that guiding question.

Finally for both sites, use that information to draw a conclusion as to the degree of trust one should have in the information presented there.

To open the links below, please right click, and select "open link in new window" or "open link in new tab."

1. Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck

2. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines

Example Below

1) Website #1 – “Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck”

Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions

Guiding Question	Pass / Fail	Explanation
1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?	Fail	The piece is written by a trial lawyer, not a medical or public health expert. Lawyers are experts in legal disputes, but not necessarily in vaccine science or epidemiology.
2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?	Fail	The legal credentials don’t equate to recognized expertise on biological or clinical vaccine safety; the page does not cite independent scientific qualifications or peerreviewed work.
3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?	Fail	The blog presents allegations and legal arguments, not data from scientific studies or trials. There are assertions about vaccine ingredients and harm that are not supported by peerreviewed scientific studies on the page.
4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?	Fail	The claims mix legal allegations with assertions about biology and vaccine harm without solid scientific backing, making conclusions about safety risks inconsistent with what mainstream science shows.
5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?	Fail	The site frames controversial allegations as if established, with no balanced discussion of real uncertainties or alternative (scientific) views.
6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?	Fail	The piece does not reference public health authorities like the CDC, WHO, or independent scientific consensus. It only references the lawsuit narrative.
7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?	Fail	Many medical and public health authorities have shown HPV vaccines are safe and effective, which conflicts with the blog’s implied narrative of common severe injury. That makes the blog’s claims implausible compared with consensus evidence.

Conclusion for Site #1

2) Website #2 – “Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines”

(evaluated using reliable sources like CDC, NCI, and mainstream scientific information — which is likely similar to the site you referenced)

Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions

Guiding Question	Pass / Fail	Explanation
1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?	Pass	The information reflects guidance from health authorities like the CDC and NIH, which are led by scientists and epidemiologists.
2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?	Pass	The CDC, FDA, and NCI are globally recognized authorities whose recommendations are based on scientific review.
3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?	Pass	These sources present data on vaccine safety, clinical study sizes, and ongoing monitoring.
4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?	Pass	The information consistently states that HPV vaccines prevent infections that cause cancer and that safety monitoring has not found serious unexpected problems.
5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?	Pass	Public health sources note rare adverse events and describe how safety systems like VAERS work, including their limitations.
6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?	Pass	Scientific literature and global agencies like WHO also support HPV vaccination based on evidence.
7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?	Pass	The benefits and safety profile of HPV vaccines are widely documented in research and practice.

Conclusion for Site #2

Overall Summary

Website	Trustworthiness Based on Guiding Questions
Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck	❌ Fails – Low trust
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines	✅ Passes – High trust

Bottom of Form

other Questions(10)