TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS #3

Name: Hillary Fair

Course: Human Biology 1090
Book: Biology 1090 Human Biology SLCC Taking Sides Readings
Issue number: 4 Title of issue: Are We Winning the War on Cancer?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side: John R. Seffrin
2. Author and major thesis of the No side: Reynold Spector
3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side:
Yes:

Science has made advancements in both understanding and treating cancer

There are now medications and treatments available to slow and remove cancer

No:

There is no cure for cancer

Doctors cannot distinguish between tumors that need treatment and those that do not,
treating people needlessly

4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side:
Yes:

People should not use tobacco

Tobacco is the largest contributor to cancer in the world

No:

Prolonging your life for a few months is not worth the cost

Science has not made very much progress in cancer treatment because of the side effects
of drugs used

5. Briefly identify as many fallacies(lack of reasoning or validity) on the Yes side as you can:

Tobacco is the primary cause of cancer (without worldwide statistics this is impossible to
know)

Cancer could be cured based solely on current success rates

6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can:

A lack of a cure suggests no progress has been made

The worth of a life can be quantified for a given space of time

7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her
thesis? Why?
Spector offered more data in the way of effects of treatment and costs. By giving this
information, he clearly stated how he viewed the advancements of cancer treatment. There was
little in the way of biased information in his presentation of the statistics on unnecessary
treatment and treatment costs.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
Seffrin is the President of the American Cancer Society, which means that he has both monetary
funding incentive and an emotional tie to presenting the information of cancer treatment

advancement in a positive light. Spector did not present any specific reasons for bias in his
article.
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the
material in these articles? Why?
While I agree that tobacco is a harmful substance that had been shown to cause cancer, there are
many studies suggesting vast unnecessary treatment for cancer that only causes additional health
issues for the patient. If Spector had not quantified the worth of the life in month spans in his
statements, I would agree with the article as a whole. However, I think that dealing in finalities
on what is worth saving is too rash for any group to decide, and would rather err on the side of
mass treatment than missing an opportunity to save a life. No was a better written article, but in
concept I agree with Yes.