What is the thesis of this argument?
The thesis of the argument as depicted in the PhD Comics video is, Open Access helps in making research literature more valuable by increasing scientific knowledge, which shreds and increases best if there are no restrictions on access to the knowledge that has been generated other places (Piled Higher and Deeper, 2012). The thesis acts as a basis for the arguments presented within the video, considering that the authors focus on evaluating various factors concerning scientific knowledge in relation to accessibility of research.
What counterargument(s) do the authors refute and how do they refute it/them?
The counterarguments provided by the authors involves the publishing of scientific manuscripts with complex detail color. The authors maintained that the typesetting, printing and distribution of the scientific works progressed really well. However, the authors refute the effectiveness of the process maintain that the systems are no longer viable in the scientific community. The authors refuted the counterarguments by maintaining that processes such as digitization have impacted on the systems by making the printing articles to be unnecessary. According to Papin-Ramcharan & Dawe (2006), digitization has a significant role in enhancing electronic publications by making it easy and cheaper to engage in the processes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What is one piece of evidence that lacks strength? How could the authors strengthen it?
During the provision of an illustration of the effects of making research inaccessibility, the authors provide an example of the limitations that the scientist experience. In the example, the authors argue that students’ education depends on access to journal article citing that professors teach only what they have access to. The piece of evidence in this case lacks adequate strength considering that it does not portray the effects of making research inaccessible effectively (Laakso, Welling, Bukvova, Nyman, Björk, & Hedlund, 2011). To offer a stronger argument, the authors could have focused on the provision of a more detailed explanation of how lack of access to research affects scientists.
Who could be the audience? How can you tell?
The audience in this case would be the scientific readers that engage in making research to enhance their scientific knowledge. Considering that the authors focus on addressing factors that concern scientific knowledge, it is possible to note that the target audience include the readers that have the ability to understand factors that concern the aspect of open access in relation to enhancing scientific knowledge. Additionally, the note used by authors provide an indication that the audience could be the readers.
How do the authors incorporate pathos into their argument? What values of the audience do they appeal to? What in their argument is meant to evoke an emotional response in the audience?
The authors incorporate pathos in their argument by mentioning that there is no value of labor considering that the researchers and reviewers do not receive proper compensation for their work. The authors appeal to the value of the audience by mentioning that the importance of science. The argument on fact that journals don’t employ the people right evokes an emotional response in the audience considering that there is no value for work.
In what ways do they incorporate logos into their argument?
The authors incorporated logos in the argument to help in employing logic and reasoning when conceiving the target audience. The authors address the issue of research funding process to provide a logical explanation on need for enhancing the availability of research materials and ensuring that scientist receive proper compensation as they engage in processes that concern discovering new things.
Are there any logical fallacies in their argument?
Considering the nature of argument presented, there are no logical fallacies depicted as the authors focused on providing a comprehensive analysis of key aspects regarding scientific knowledge basing on facts. The authors capitalized on overcoming issues associated with hasty generalization, which is a common fallacy in arguments.
Short Comprehension Essay
Summary of the Argument
The PhD comics video on the “Open Access Explained” focuses on the argument that open access capitalizes on four different aspects that include free, online, immediate, and available research article, which helps in making research to be more valuable. The authors maintain that research literature is made more valuable by increasing scientific knowledge. The argument maintains that open access is not only a description of the model but it is also an argument for embracing the model based on the valuable impact. The authors focus on describing different aspects that concern open access model for scientific publications.
Assessment of What Works Well
The argument provided by the authors on the aspect of history of the open access model worked well considering the provision of adequate information. The explanation in this case helped in providing the readers with the ability to understand all the crucial aspects that concern the history of the model and the changes that have been experienced within the model owing to digitization. Additionally, the incorporation of various aspects concerning the model worked well for the argument.
Assessment of what dint work well
In illustrating the impact of inaccessibility of research, the author engaged in the provision of an example that did not work well. Based on the argument presented in this case, the readers may disregard the issue considering inadequate information provided. The remoteness of information impacted on the effectiveness of the argument presented.
References
Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PloS one , 6 (6), e20961.
Papin-Ramcharan, J. I., & Dawe, R. A. (2006). Open access publishing: A developing country view. First Monday , 11 (6).
Piled Higher and Deeper (PHD Comics). (2012). Open Access Explained! Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rVH1KGBCY
