Analyzing Context

In this blog post I will be analyzing the context of my controversy.

Dugdale, Dave. "Analyzing Financial Data". 10/20/2010. Public Domain.

1. The key schools of thought and perspectives in my public debate are that doctors are not getting treated in a way that they used to and how they believe that they should be treated differently.

2. The major disagreements in my public debate are that doctors should still be meeting the standard of quality of work that they used to but the doctors feel that this is impossible with the amount of work and patients they receive.

3. Some possible common ground would be an agreement that the doctors are being overworked and that they need to be given less work and the patients need to be distributed amongst more doctors.

4. Some idealogical differences are ones that deal with cultural differences. There are not similar problems that occur in other parts of the world that have better healthcare. The American culture and bad healthcare is prompting this problem.

5. There is not much that the audience can do in this situation. The audience are patients of the doctors and cannot do much to change this controversy unless they all unite to demand changes in the healthcare system.

6. The perspectives of the doctors is what is important in supporting my own arguments because i wish to argue that doctors are not happy in their jobs.

7. Perspectives of physicians that really enjoy their line of work will be the greatest threat to my argument because it will provide expert opinion and facts to argue against my argument.


Reflection:
Morgan and Jayni both had context that was somewhat similar to that of mine. Morgan and my arguments are similar in that they are highly opinionated but are still backed up by facts so that its not just one word over the other. Jay's argument differed from mine because of the amount of common ground on each side of the debate that there is. My controversy differed because there is very little common ground.