Critical Reasoning Week 6 Discussion 1

Critical Reasoning Week 6 Discussion 1

This is a graded discussion: 25 points possible due Aug 17 at 1:59am

Week 6 Discussion 1: Comparative Reasoning 46 46

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity:

Introduction The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).

The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).

Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:

Textbook: Chapter 12 Lesson 1, 2 Link (library article): The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953 ( url= live&scope=site) Link (library article): The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? ( direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site) Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs ( Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 1 of 42

Follow-Up Post Instructions Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

Writing Requirements

Grading This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday


DeShazo, R.D., Johnson, M., Eriator, Ike, Rodenmeyer, K. (2018). Backstories on the U.S. opioid epidemic. Good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue, and watch dogs gone to sleep. The American Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from

Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from

In what way are the two situations comparable? In what way are they different? Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up) Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source) APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 2 of 42

” Reply

King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times. url= direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site

Wolinsky H., & Brune, T. (1994). The serpent on the staff: The unhealthy politics of the American Medical Association. Tarcher/Putnam.

( Sheffield (Instructor) Jun 22, 2020


Greetings Students,

You are only required to post an initial answer post and ONE follow-up post in each required discussion, each week.

Please make your TWO posts each week between Monday and Sunday. Your posts must occur on different days with the first post occurring by Wednesday. If there are extenuating circumstances, please communicate with your professor.

Reasoning with Analogies

Analogies are comparisons applied to some specific intellectual purpose

Reasoning with Analogies Involves the Following:

Argument by analogy or reasoning by analogy

Used to explain by comparison

Used simply to give a vivid description or to spice up a narrative

new and unfamiliar to more familiar abstract and intangible to tangible things

Similarity Difference Relevance

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 3 of 42

Edited by Sonja Sheffield ( on Jun 22 at 12:40pm

” Reply #

Finally, in order to Evaluate an Argument by Analogy follow the steps below:

An argument by analogy involves reasoning from one situation to an analogous, or similar, situation; a conclusion is reached about something on the basis of it being similar to something else. The form of an argument by analogy is this: A has/is X, and so B applies; C also has/is X, so be sure also apply. For example, an orange is rounded, and it rolls; this ball is also around, so it should also role.

The strength of an argument by analogy depends on whether there are sufficient relevant similarities and no relevant dissimilarities. The more relevant similarities there are, and the fewer relevant dissimilarities, the stronger the argument. For example, roundness is relevant to rolling: since both the orange and the ball are around, they are similar in that relevant feature.

Consider this. A week analogy is one in which few of the relevant features are similar; in such a case, your conclusion follows only weakly from your premises (and should therefore be accepted with minimal confidence). A false analogy is one in which none of the relevant features are similar, or worse, they’re dissimilar in the relevant aspects; in such a case, you’ve made a faulty comparison and the argument should be rejected.


Tittle, P. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason. Routledge, New York, NY.

Inferential: to infer conclusions Argumentative: to support or defend controversial positions Useful to distinguish the items compared by the roles they play in the comparison Analogue(s): the item(s) used as the basis of the comparison Target(s): the item(s) about which conclusions are drawn or explanations are offered

1. Identify the similarities between the analogue and the target 2. Determine whether this similarity is relevant to the conclusion 3. Determine whether there are significant relevant differences between the analogue and the

target 4. Use these determinations to evaluate the strength of the argument inferred by analogy


Melissa Shetto (

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 4 of 42



Hello everyone

According to what I have gathered, these two situations are comparable and similar in the way of the role the physicians played in promoting products that were harmful to people, the doctors who accepted payment or researchers who received funding said or supported whatever their donors said in exchange of endorsing the tobacco products or opioid based medication. Also, both cases involved commercialized products that had limited or highly misinterpreted information which led to the public being misinformed.

According to Gardner and Brandt (2011), smoking had become a norm for both men and women in the 1930’s and 1940’s in America. They further highlight how a rise in public concern over health risks posed by smoking cigarettes led tobacco companies to use physicians’ endorsements as an evocative assurance of the safety of their products.

The same is evident in the role physicians played in accelerating the opioid crisis in America. According to Gale (2016), many “medical experts” and “thought leaders” proclaimed that the risks of addiction to opioids were minimal when treating pain.

These two situations differ from one another in the purpose of the product involved and the role the physicians played. In one case, physicians were used as part of the advertisement and the product was for recreational purposes where as in the other case the physician prescribed medication which in many instances led to addiction and the product was for medical treatment.

I believe that the conduct of physicians in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is morally equivalent to the conduct of physicians in opioid crisis. I say this because in both cases the physicians did not act according to the ethical standards of their professional field, in both instances they chose financial gain above the well fare of the general public. Also, in both situations the physicians overlooked evidence and information that suggested the possibility of negative side-effects both tobacco and opioid might have on the users.

When the practice of Medicine loses its ethical foundation and operates by the rules of the market place rather than the ethical standards, one can expect that disasters like the money-driven

In what way are the two situations comparable?

In what way are they different?

Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis?

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 5 of 42

” Reply #

physician caused opioid epidemic to occur again (Gale, 2016).


Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS

Your assignment woes end here!

Who We Are
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched for a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?


1. Click on the  “Order Now” on the main Menu and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the “PAPER INFORMATION” section and the system will calculate your order price/cost.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

100% Reliable Site. Make this your Home of Academic Papers.


Always Order High-Quality Academic Papers from HERE 

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it. 

We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so that it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium.

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Your assignment woes end here!

You cannot copy content of this page