As Booth states, “a warrant is a statement that connects a reason to a claim(152).” Warrants are used to establish the author’s credibility and his knowledge and background on the subject at hand. An author is required to predict the possible questions that the reader might ask and attempt to answer them beforehand to help establish his validity. Because readers may question the truth as well as its relevance, the author should attempt to make the connections between the claim and the reason for the claim clear so that his credibility is not questioned but strengthened. If the reason does not match up with the claim, the author may be questioned and lose his ability to persuade his readers. For instance, Tim Bardin states that because it’s “hard for male, non-reg Aggies to be elected yell leader,” it’s impossible for a “female, non-reg Aggie” to win the election. Though Bardin states a warrant, he does not provide a solid reason for his claim. Many may question the relationship between the two and how one affects the other. Because he doesn’t provide a clear connection, his authenticity is hurt. As one scrolls down to the comments, we see that many question his reasoning for the claim. Why would it be difficult for a female, non-reg Aggie to win the election? Is Bardin saying that because traditionally, males in the reg have won in the past, no one else stands a chance? Could males regs winning in the past be solely because of their personality or does it really have to do with being in the Core of Cadets and having a Y chromosome? Questions like these can really hurt one’s credibility if the reasonings behind the claim are not addressed.
Lincoln occupies different rhetorial positions in public discourse because he did not want to be the final voice as far as the issue of slavery was concerned. His main objective was to “save the union” and whether in the process slaves were saved, it would just be a bonus. Lincoln chose to be the voice that got many talking about slavery and attempted to promote public discourse over the issue without giving his two cents. Because of the divided state of the country, Lincoln understood that both sides would not be pleased by his decision to “destory slavery” or “save slavery.” Ultimately, the states would have to decide for themselves whether the insitution of slavery would be worth saving or the country. Though Lincoln has gotten tons of credit in regards to freeing 4 million slaves with his Empanciation Proclamation, Lincoln did not really free slaves. Because this was during the civil war in 1863, he did not have any control over the southern states since they had already seceded from the country. Giving Lincoln credit for freeing slaves is giving credit someone who in reality didn’t really do much.
Louis Pasteur, a French chemist and microbiologist, contributed to the scientific community in many ways in the 72 years of his existence. In 1862, Pasteur, along with Claude Bernard, perfected the modern process of pasteurization. This process involves the heating of a food to a “specific temperature for a definite length of time and then cooling it immediately” (Pasterurization). With advanced technologies and better experimental conditions, his process of pasteurization has received both praise and criticism. Many critics credit him for saving millions of lives through his development of pasteurization and some have also included the process in many blog posts such as “Inventions That Changed The Way We Lived” (Shupe) and “8 Inventions That Made Our Lives Easier”(Free Web Design Tucson). Some scholars also believe that pasteurization prevents the cause of tuberculosis due to its destruction of a bacterium called Mycobacterium Paratuberculosis, and experiments have been carried out to test this theory (Science Direct).
Pasteurization was overall accepted pretty well at the time of Louis. The horrible environment in which cows were forced to live in the 1800s was due to the increased demand of alcohol which left less land available for dairy farms. With less land, many farmers were forced to house cows in whiskey distilleries and due to the convenience of distillery slop, cows’ diets and ultimately their health and milk deteriorated. The milk produced was unfit for the market which led to farmers adding inedible ingredients to better its appearance and taste (Natural Bias). As this practice of “doctoring up” milk became more widespread, tuberculosis also began to spread among the child age part of the population. A beverage that was meant to build strong bones and promote health in kids, led to increased disease. With Pasteurization, this “swill milk” was no longer like a poisoned apple. By killing germs in the milk by “pasteurizing” it, parents were no longer fearful of losing their children to tuberculosis due to germ-infected milk.
With its high potential to change our world for the better by providing disease-free milk, many studies have been done to test the process. After carrying out many experiments involving the heating of raw milk at different temperatures, using two different methods, one study concluded that if the milk was spiked at greater levels than 100,000 cfu/ml, some Mycobacterium paratuberculosis could survive when treated with high temperatures for a short period of time. When milk for the shelves was tested, some were also found to have living bacteria (Science Direct). With this potential to still be harmful to the consumer, are we sure that pasteurization is the way to go?
While some do credit him for creating a process that has in return bettered our lives and health, others do not feel the same way. Natural Bias also lists multiple disadvantages to pasteurization of milk such as the destruction of “desirable nutrients and microorganisms” that give milk its “health promoting benefits” as well as the undesirable effect pasteurization has on the symbiotic relationship between microbes and humans (Natural Bias). Like a double edged sword, it seems we can’t have it all. Due to the uncertainty of conditions in which milk is produced and packaged today, it’s not hard to believe why people are more willingly to drink less beneficial milk than accidently taking a dose of lethal bacteria due to the laziness of some farmers to keep barns sanitary. An article from Armchair Science suggests that what really needs to be done is for the government to pass strict legislature to make sure that the conditions in which cows are kept are germ-free and raw milk is clean. The author of the article also accuses this process for making Calcium insoluble which can lead to “rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles (Raw Milk).” Another article found on Real Milk by Mark McAfee, the CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy accuses pasteurization of killing filthy milk, not creating clean milk (McAfee).
More radical views against pasteurization exist one of which outright calls pasteurization a myth. The author of the webpage claims that “the heating process injures the milk” as well as “destroys milk’s intrinsic germicidal properties (Wellness).” Though this website also claims that Louis Pasteur was a “fraud,” we see that many have mixed feelings about pasteurization. Due to the difference of opinions, whether this process has in actuality made our lives easier or not, it is truly in the eyes of the beholder.
“8 Inventions That Made Our Lives Easier.” Freewebdesigntucson.com. Free Web Design Tucson. Web. 27 January 2012.
“Louis Pasteur And the Myth of Pasteurization.” Mnwelldir.org. Wellness Directory of Minnesota. Web. 27 January 2012.
McAfee, Mark. “The 15 Things that Milk Pasteurization Kills.” Realmilk.com. Real Milk Articles. Web. 5 February 2012.
“Pasteurization.” Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Web. 27 January 2012.
“Raw Milk Vs. Pasteurized Milk.” Realmilk.com. Real Milk Articles. Web. 5 February 2012.
Shupe, Angela. “Inventions That Changed The Way We Live.” Business-opportunities.biz. Business Opportunities. Web. 27 January 2012.
“The Shocking Truth About Raw Milk and Pasteurization.” Naturalbias.com. Natural Bias. Web. 27 January 2012.