Argumentation & Evaluation Guide

C Bulgren revised 10/1//2008

Name: Michelle NixonClass: __________________________Date: 1/27/09_______________________________

Topic_Effect of Diet on Autism___________________________Title_Science Disputes Autism’s Diet Link____________

Source Internet__________________________________

7

Accept, reject, or withhold judgment about the claim. Explain your judgment. Withhold judgment. I’d like to see a citation of the research that indicated that 40% of autistic children could benefit from dietary changes. And I’d like to see the numerous parental testimonials and statements from non mainstream doctors quantified some way, so we can compare pre diet and post diet behaviors.

1 What is the Claim, including any Qualifiers? Are there qualifiers? Yes. (If yes, underline them.) 1. Some research suggests that up to 40% of children with autism Spectrum disorders could benefit from dietary changes, including the removal of gluten or casein. OR when I go off the title I come up with- 2. Most mainstream scientists remain skeptical of the gut-grain connection in autism and say there is no scientific proof that the diet works.

2What Evidence is presented? In column 3, identify the type of evidence with the letter: Data (D), Fact (F), Opinion (O), Theory (T).*Many parents have reported that their autistic children have improved on the diet.

*A single, double blind clinical trial showed autistic children on the diet had no significant improvement. However, it was a small sample size.

*Supporters say gluten and casein are not well digested by autistic kids, who often exhibit digestive problems and food allergies. Not sure how it works “leaky gut”

*Mainstream scientists remain skeptical and say there’s no scientific proof the diet works. *Treatments such as the GFCF diet are gaining ground.

*Parents may falsely believe their child has improved- Placebo Effect

Evaluate the quality of the evidence as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation.

4

What are your concerns about the believability of the claim? (your counterarguments, rebuttals or new questions)? 1. Where is the research that suggests a benefit due to dietary changes? Why isn’t it cited in this article? 2. Can parents’ observations of their children and some doctor’s treatments be dismissed as being due to a “placebo effect”?

36

5

Evaluate the quality of the chain of reasoning as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation.

What chain of reasoning (warrant) connects the evidence to the claim? In column 6, identify type of reasoning with the letter(s): for AUTHORITY (A), THEORY (T), or type of LOGIC: Analogy (AN), Correlation (C), Cause-Effect (CE), Generalization (G) *Lonnie Zwaigenbaum, associate professor at the Univ. of AlbertaAnd director of autism research at Edmonton’s Glenrose. . . *Dr. Cutler part of DAN!holds annual conferences and instructional Sessions for docotrs recommends biomedical treatments

*Pediatrician Wendy Edwards son improved so dramatically the diet is the first thing she recommends for autistic parents. *Supporters say gluten and casein are not well digested by autistic kids, who often exhibit digestive problems and food allergies *Some research suggests that up to 40% of children with autism Spectrum disorders could benefit from dietary changes, including the removal of gluten or casein

8

9

Reliable Poor because the reported results are so varied.Valid- Good All the data addresses the claim.

Strength of Authority – Poor; only one scientific study cited; another one was referred to, but was not cited. The rest was opinion: doctors and parents on both sides of the issue.Application of Theory – Poor; there are some but no correct applicationsType of Logic – Poor-Average; There are correlations and an analogy but both are weaker types of logic.

Objective (no bias) Poor; even though there is an attempt to present both sides of the issue all the testimonials and authority used lead one to believe that the parents are right and just waiting for the doctors to catch up. Even the double blind study was dismissed because it had a small sample size.Controlled experiment –Poor- the double blind study is the gold standard; however the rest were just referenced as studies or research suggests and none were repeated. . .

O

D

T

O

F

O

A

A

AN

T

C