Ella Stupart
Mr. Ippolito C Even
October 10, 2018
Current Event
Citation:
Brody, Jane E. “Unlocking the World of Sound for Deaf Children.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/well/live/unlocking-the-world-of-sound-for-deaf-children.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront.
Jane E. Brody’s article “Unlocking the World of Sound for Deaf Children” explains and promotes a new piece of technology that allows deaf people to hear called the cochlear implant. Brody begins with an optimistic tone by sharing the opinion of a pediatric audiology consultant, Jane R. Madell that there is the possibility for almost all deaf children to hear again. Brody claims that cochlear implants, especially in children, are an important tool in regaining hearing. According to the article, a cochlear implant is a device that is inserted in the ear through surgery that allows for sound waves to come in direct contact with the the auditory nerve, passing the hair cells in the ear that do not work. These implants can be inserted into babies with hearing disabilities “before they can walk” and babies who receive the implants early enough can develop language skills at the same rate as children who were born without a hearing disability. After providing many success stories, Brody briefly mentions that many deaf people do not support implants and believe that deaf children should instead learn sign language and then refutes this point, stating “...only 0.1 percent of the population knows sign language, and 95 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, who then have to spend a long time learning to sign, during a period when children are normally learning to speak.”(Brody 18). Brody then informs the audience of the importance of screening children for auditory disabilities being screened at birth; when these issues are treated early on, children can develop their language abilities at the same rate as other children their age.
The cochlear implant is a major development in medicine. It has already helped thousands of deaf people to hear again and will continue to do so. According to the article, when talking about children that receive the implant, Dr. Madell claims that “‘Eighty-five percent of such children are successfully mainstreamed.’”(Brody 3). Most of the children being treated with these implants are able to live normal lives afterwards with minimal complications regarding their normally life altering condition. This device has also helped adults whose hearing aids were no longer effective. The success stories presented in this article are proof that the cochlear implant has changed people’s lives for the better and will continue to do so.
Brody successfully appeals to the audience’s pathos and logos in this article. She appealed to pathos by including touching success stories that cause the reader to feel empathy towards deaf people and their families. She also appeals to pathos at the end of the article when explaining the importance of newborn babies being screened for hearing loss. This may cause the reader to worry about whether or not their future kids will have hearing disabilities and will make them more likely to be certain the tests are done when they do have children. When people can personally connect to an article, they are more likely to consider the author’s point and will remember it for a longer amount of time. Brody also appealed to logos by including the opinion of an auditory doctor along with multiple statistics support her claims. While Brody successfully supported the argument that cochlear implants are an important development and should be used more frequently, she did not spend a lot of time refuting opposing views or bringing up negative aspects of this device, which leads the reader to think that the author is biased. There was only one brief instance in the article when Brody brought up an opposing claim and she did not elaborate on it very thoroughly. I was left with questions about availability, cost, whether or not it is covered by insurance, how many doctors are able to perform the surgery, and possible side effects or negative aspects of the device. Including these points would strengthen Brody’s argument even further. Brody’s overall argument was well supported by facts and statistics, persuasive, and informative.
Caitlin Mooney
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Event 5
10/16/18
Brody, Jane E. “Unlocking the World of Sound for Deaf Children.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 8 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/well/live/unlocking-the-world-of-sound-for-deaf-children.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront.
For this week’s scientific article review, I read Ella’s review on the article, “Unlocking the World of Sound for Deaf Children.” by Jane E. Brody. In this article, Brody describes the cochlear implant, a new piece of technology that is inserted into the ear in surgery to help deaf people hear. I think that Ella did a great job with her review because she was able to explain the cochlear implant well so that the reader could understand the topic. Something else Ella did weel was that she summarized the ethical dilemma of if deaf children should be given the implant. Ella did a good job incorporating a quote into her review so that the reader could understand the point of view of those who did not want the children to get cochlear implants so they could learn sign language. Finally, I liked how Ella was able to point out Brody’s use of pathos and logos in her article.
Overall, I think Ella did a fantastic job with her review, but there is still some room for improvement. First of all, I think Ella should have explained the accessibility and affordability of cochlear implants in more depth. If she had done this, the reader would have understood how widely used these implants could become and how many people they could help. Additionally, I think Ella should have cited an achievement or the workplace of Dr. Mandell, even if they were not included in the article, if Ella had added the citation, the quote would be more credible.
Although Ella’s review was not perfect, I think that she did a great job in her summary and critique of the author. After reading her review I was surprised to find out that technology has evolved far enough for people to have created implants that can make deaf people hear. This review surprised me again when Ella talked about how some people didn’t want the implant or didn’t want their children to have it. Although I now understand their reasoning for not giving their kids the implant, I question the moral standpoint of the deaf people who do not support of the implant for refusing their child of one of their senses.
Luke Freeman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology Current Events 6 - Comment
10/25/18
Brody, Jane E. “Unlocking the World of Sound for Deaf Children.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 8 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/well/live/unlocking-the-world-of-sound-for-deaf-children.
html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health®i
on=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionf
Ront.
This striking article, reviewed masterfully by Ella Stupart, is a touching, serious issue. For starters, Ella did a great job at establishing the issue and giving the reader context about the article. Her summary is near-perfect in capturing the whole article, while keeping it brief. Secondly, in her explanatory section, she does a great job of bringing the reader back to the main premise of the article, as embodied by this statement, “Brody then informs the audience of the importance of screening children for auditory disabilities being screened at birth; when these issues are treated early on, children can develop their language abilities at the same rate as other children their age.”. This line was especially powerful as while continuing to explain this issue, she keeps the main focus of the article, that being to promote the widespread usage of this technology, in the foreground. Finally, Ella does a great job of utilizing specific examples in her review, which furthers her credibility as the analyst. This ensures the reader, such as myself, that what I am being told is true.
Only two small things stood out when reading Ella’s review, the first being the slight repetitiveness at times. For example, in her first sentence of her first and second paragraphs, she explains the cochlear implant, “... explains and promotes a new piece of technology that allows deaf people to hear called the cochlear implant.” then later, “The cochlear implant is a major development in medicine. It has already helped thousands of deaf people to hear again and will continue to do so.” These two sentences seem to be a tad repetitive, but it is by no means a huge deal. If I have to stretch that far to find a problem with this analysis then it is quite spot on. My slightly larger concern with her review was the lack of inclusion of multiple statistics. While reading the article, I noticed there were many interesting statistics that might have been useful in her review, yet she used only one. That being said, her review overall was clear, concise, and easy to follow, making it an effective analysis.
This article by Jane Brody of the New York Times was intriguing in all stages, however, one singular fact stood out the most while reading the article, and Ella’s review. This is best addressed by Ella when she explains, “... ‘Eighty-five percent of such children are successfully mainstreamed.’(Brody 3). Most of the children being treated with these implants are able to live normal lives afterwards with minimal complications regarding their normally life altering condition.”. This concept of such a high success rate for people regaining their ability to hear could never have crossed my mind prior to reading this article. It both causes the reader to take a step back, and be thankful for their (presumably) good hearing, as well as inspire feelings of wonder and excitement for the future of medical technology.
Anna Normand
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
10 October 2018
I thought that Ella’s review of the article “Unlocking the World of Sound for Deaf Children” was incredibly well done. One thing I liked about her review was her language. She uses clear, concise syntax to effectively communicate what she wants to say, and her simple explanations of complicated concepts ensure that the reader can follow what the author is saying. Furthermore, she uses relatively simple language to explain complex medical procedures and innovations, which is impressive and helps the review feel easy to read and easy to follow. Second, I thought her assessment of the pros and cons of the cochlear implant were very insightful, and provided helpful explanations as to why parents may not want to give their children the implant. Finally, her explanation of pathos and logos as used by the author were helpful to understanding how the author got her message across to the audience and why it was so effective.
One thing I think Ella could improve upon is giving more context for the article. For example, it may be helpful to know how many children suffer from deafness and how many are helped by the cochlear implant. It would also increase the validity of the article if Ella provided information on the author’s credentials and his ability to speak on this subject. Not knowing much about the author makes it difficult to give credit to what he is saying. I also thought that Ella could expand on why cochlear implants are sometimes opposed by parents of deaf children, as the logic was not entirely clear to me.
Overall I thought this was an excellent review of a very interesting article. I didn’t know that cochlear implants could so easily solve the problems of millions of people living with a disability, and I am interested to know how they will be implemented to reach more people in the coming years.