this is for 2 different classes. The first question is for micro, and the second is critical reasoning. please make it short and simple and use simple wording when writing. don’t use ai teacher will check.
1-Fifteen-year-old Dolores was embarrassed to talk with her mother about the pain she felt in her “private parts,” but she was worried she might have gotten a disease, despite Nick’s assurance that she was his “first.” Her mother insisted that Dolores see a doctor, who discovered cervical lesions caused by a virus associated with cancer.
What sexually transmitted virus is involved?
How should the physician treat the lesions?
How could Dolores have protected herself?
2- For this week’s discussion, we’ll be listening to podcasts!
Each of the podcast options below seeks to debunk a particular belief, argument, or fad, so in effect they demonstrate strong critical reasoning of the kind we’re applying in this class (imagine that, people being paid to apply and discuss critical reasoning!). Choose any one episode of whichever option you prefer:
Science Vs. – “There are a lot of fads, blogs, and strong opinions, but then there’s SCIENCE. Science Vs. finds out what’s fact, what’s not, and what’s somewhere in between. We do the hard work of sifting through all the science so you don’t have to and cover everything from 5G and pandemics to vaping and fasting diets.”
Maintenance Phase – “debunking the junk science behind health fads, wellness scams and nonsensical nutrition advice.” Note that some of the language may be not be suitable for children, so if that’s a concern you may wish to choose a different option.
If Books Could Kill – a podcast that specializes in debunking popular nonfiction books, i.e. “the airport bestsellers that captured our hearts and ruined our minds.” Note again that some of the language may not be suitable for children.
Debunking Medical Myths – conversations with health professionals dismantling false beliefs about medicine, health, and wellness.
The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe – “dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science through online and other media.”
Skeptoid – “The true science behind our most popular urban legends. Historical mysteries, paranormal claims, popular science myths, aliens and UFO reports, conspiracy theories, and worthless alternative medicine schemes … Skeptoid has you covered. From the sublime to the startling, no topic is sacred.”
The Stronger by Science Podcast – “evidence, anecdotes, and incoherent ramblings on training, nutrition, science, and life in general.”
Sawbones: A Marital Tour of Misguided Medicine – “Join Dr. Sydnee McElroy and her husband Justin McElroy for a tour of all the dumb, bad, gross, weird, and wrong ways we’ve tried to fix people.”
Expert Guide to Conspiracy Theories – a special 6-part produced by The Anthill, which is a podcast that specializes in making academic research accessible and engaging. Episodes do not have to be listened to in order – you can choose any one of the following:
Part 1 – How to Spot One
Part 2 – Who Believes Them and Why?
Part 3 – Their History
Part 4 – How They Spread
Part 5 – How Dangerous Are They?
Part 6 – Coronavirus
Initial Post
After listening to your chosen podcast episode, summarize an argument that the podcast seeks to debunk (that is, you’re not summarizing the podcasters’ argument, but the argument that they’re critiquing).
When presenting this argument, you should outline its key points and main conclusions, and provide a general idea about its potential implications or repercussions. However, do not reveal how or why the argument is debunked in the podcast. Your goal here is to present the argument as it would be advocated by its proponents, without any critique or analysis, before the podcasters present their critique. As in some of our recent discussions, your primary goal is to accurately summarize an argument to give your classmates an opportunity to practice their critical reasoning skills.
Note that you do not need to summarize the entire episode – you only need to summarize a single argument, i.e. a single conclusion/claim supported by one or more premises. If you happen to find a suitable argument in the first 10 minutes, hey, you’re done and can just use that! (Though it may still be interesting to listen to the full rest of the episode too).
As an example of what an initial post might look like (note that I made this podcast & episode up, just so you don’t go looking for it):
Podcast: Debunkers!
Episode: Debunking Anti-Vaccine Myths
Conclusion: Vaccines are linked to autism, particularly the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine.
Key Premises:
1. Autism Link: The proponents of this argument often refer to a study published in 1998 in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, by a British gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield. The study posited a correlation between the MMR vaccine and the onset of autism and bowel disease.
2. Vaccine Ingredients: Anti-vaccine advocates also argue that vaccines contain harmful substances, such as mercury in the form of thimerosal, which they claim contribute to the development of autism.
3. Natural Immunity: They also argue that natural immunity — that is, immunity obtained by catching and recovering from a disease — is more effective and safer than vaccine-induced immunity.
Implications of this Argument:
If valid, this argument would have serious repercussions for public health policies worldwide. It would call into question the safety and efficacy of not just the MMR vaccine, but all vaccines that use similar compounds. This could potentially lead to a decline in vaccination rates, potentially resulting in outbreaks of diseases that were previously controlled or eradicated. It could also lead to widespread skepticism toward the importance of herd immunity in controlling the spread of infectious diseases.
