Liliana Banderas
Sacha Idell
Composition II
October 27, 2015
Rhetorical Analysis In recent studies, scientists have discovered that less screening for breast cancer is better than more screening. They found that women who are tested before the age of 45 have a greater risk of a false positive which results in having to deal with multiple tests and examinations without the need of them. Researchers suggest that women should wait until they are at least 45 to begin getting any mammograms done. The CNN article “New breast cancer guidelines: screen later, less often”, was written according to the research in the original source, “Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk”. The way that this information is given by researchers is commonly …show more content…
The purpose is to persuade women to not get any screenings done before the recommended age. When it comes to the original source article, the researcher’s purpose of writing the article is to gather information that can be used as a source of information for other researchers or articles. The researchers are not trying to persuade anyone of a particular outcome, but instead explain how breast cancer screening can affect women before the age of 45. The researchers illustrate their findings in a way that is not easily understood like that of the CNN article. For example in the original article it states, “A smaller percentage of women who are recalled go on to biopsy, and a majority of these women will have benign findings” (JAMA), when they could have easily said, “The chances of false positives are especially high for women under 45” (CNN), just like in the CNN …show more content…
The scientific article also shows their data in tables and graphs that are easy to read and can be easily understood. These tables help other researchers access the information easily and help find whether their results are similar, or maybe have a flaw in their work. They are expected to explain every part of their study in great detail no matter how long the study seems. The more detail that they incorporate, then the better the study becomes and the more data they will have to back up that study. On the other hand, the CNN article is written in a simpler form so that it can be understood by a larger population. They try to avoid using big words that the audience of the article may not fully understand. The CNN article is written in a much clearer, more understanding manner. If the public were to try and read the original source they would have a hard time trying to figure out exactly what was going on because the original source uses language that is written for other researchers and not the public. The original article includes the abstract, introduction, the process, results, limitations, discussion, conclusions, article information, and references, while the CNN article is only sectioned into four different parts that are not too long and are easy to