Lorenzos Oil Essays - Methylphenidate, RTT, , Term Papers

Lorenzos Oil Larry Hood Project IV STEPS 2 & 3 Article 1 1. What is property P? Increase in brain activity 2. What is the sample? The 16 boys 3. What is the population? All children 4. What is the implicit question? Why is there a difference in brain function between normal kids and kids with ADHD. 5. What is not the implicit question? Do all children have a property p? 6. What type of argument? Sampling 7. what did they look at? They looked at 16 children who were diagnosed with ADHD six were not. 8. IQ: Is there a difference in brain function between normal kids and kids with ADHD? 9. NOT: Do all children have a difference in brain function? Schematization S1 6% of school children suffer from ADHD and require medication. S2 They looked at 16 children between 8 and 13 who were diagnosed with ADHD six were not.. S3 Ritalin is the drug used to treat children with hyperactive and aggressive behavior. S4/C1 ADHD children react differently than normal kids when given Ritalin S5 Children with ADHD exhibit problems like poor listening and poor impulse control.. S6 Healthy children have a decrease in brain activity when given Ritalin. C2 Ritalin has no positive effect on behavior in healthy children Article 2 1. What type of argument? Correlation 2. What is A ? GIK treatment (glucose insulin and potassium) 3. What is B? Reduction in heart attack deaths. 4. Causal Mechanism? Clogged arteries 5. What is the implicit question? Why does oxygen nourishment (GIK)to the heart reduce heart attack deaths? 6. NOT- What caused a reduction I Heart attacks? 7. Which rival explains why a and b occur together? Forward cause Rival - Those that received treatment did not have clogged arteries. The argument in the article is a correlation argument. There is a correlation between A the GIK treatment and B the reduction in heart attack deaths. The arguer believes there is a correlation because of a prior study. This study was originally conducted in 1960. And had showed and overall reduction in heart attack death rate by half. This study was discarded however because of poorly conducted clinical tests. These tests led many doctors to doubt that it worked. The study conducted called GIK for glucose, insulin and potassium nourishes t65he heart muscle that are deprived of oxygen immediately following a heart attack. The causal mechanism are clogged arteries that reduce the flow of oxygen to the heart. The researches need to continue the study of the treatment along with the treatment for clogged arteries to consider this a strong argument. Many of the findings are undermined by the fact that many of the patients that survived were receiving clot busting drugs combined with the G IK treatment. This is relevant data to support the conclusion. S1 Patients who received the GIK treatment combined with clot busting drugs have a better chance of surviving a heart attack. S2 The treatment provides energy to the heart muscle during and immediately after a heart attack. C1 If doctors use the GIK treatment combined with clot busting drugs the heart attack death rate will decrease. Article 3 1. What is A? the CHD1 gene 2. What is B? Causes heart disease. 3. What is causal mechanism? Bad diet and lack of exercise 4. Is the Author saying one thing cause another? Yes 5. What is the implicit question? Why does the gene appear to promot heart disease? 6. NOT - What caused the heart disease. 7. This could be common cause because there are environmental factors that could be the cause of A and B. Rival - The gene caused the body to over produce cholesterol which collects in the arteries and cause blockage of blood flow to the heart. The argument for the article is a correlation argument. There is a correlation between A the CHD1 gene and B heart disease. The arguer believes there is a correlation because of the study of the 75 families who had a history of early heart disease. The causal mechanism is Bad diet and lack of exercise. Relevant data to support the conclusion would be causes of arterial blockage and how many of the children had high levels of cholesterol. If the children had high levels of cholesterol in their blood this would be relevant data to support the conclusion. I believe this is a weak argument. S1 10% of the families in the study were