She says she has a PH.D. in statistics, but she doesn’t seem to entitle the reader if she has any health and medical experience. After quickly reading it’s almost as if she is going against the doctor’s analysis. Further, she entices the reader multiple times on stories and this induces the listener/reader to watch/read.
Talithia Williams next explains about a case of the 95% confidence interval and how this relates to a 0.1 percent chance doubling; to 0.2 percent due to the reason that the due date had passed. He was going by the statistics for the general population and Talithia infers to the reader that it is an unnecessary additional risk to be put in (4:13 Talithia Williams ted talk).
She intertwines all the statistic and knowledge to entice the reader to become more involved. The only problem with her argument is it lacks the professional doctors’ point of view (she seems to be putting him in the category liable to be at fault). Talithia Williams states” I am not anti-medical intervention” (debaters need to look at a broader view). …show more content…
Seems once again a one sided argument with no opposition.
Now I’m not all down to the negative she does persuade and is quite entertaining that she is able to pose a strong argument vocally in such a short time. But the problem mainly with this is that is too short. Would love to hear the other half of the story if there is any. With many things that you shorten down you, often without realizing it yourself and you often leave key details