Bihr's Vaccination Analysis

Unfortunately, Bihr is not able to persuade the audience members who hold negative attitudes on vaccinations. The statements by Lillvis, Kirkland, & Frick (2014) and the Pew Research Center (2015) present evidence that audience members do not find vaccines effective and will not change their attitudes, or personal feelings on the topic. Since attitudes are difficult to change, Bihr’s different forms of rational arguments and value of family are unable to alter audience views on the topic.
On the other hand, Bihr’s strategies can change the audience’s belief that vaccinations are avoidable, with regards to religious views. Although religious claims are available when avoiding vaccinations, the statistics cause the audience to realize the effects of it and change their actions on vaccines. Since the statistics show

Bihr informs the audience with supporting evidence by Ferdinands et al. (2014) and Dr. Cave (2015) that vaccinations reduce the risks of viruses and protects children. When applying Bihr’s narrative, statistics, and value, the rhetoric is more effective because the audience can agree with Bihr’s points and share a common ground on the topic of protection. The strategies of value of family and the need for longevity supports the situational advantage in the form of cultural factors, since most cultures share common perspectives on family and life. The audience is able to understand that on a global scale, a diversity of parents encourage vaccinations to increase their lifespan, which may influence them to take action themselves. With the Pew Research Center’s report stating that audience members hold similar expectations of vaccinations, the pathos used in the concern for family and the need for longevity strategies work effectively to support the audience