Free Paper with Essay Review

In the introductory part of the essay, the author has not defined the topic. The writer should have clearly defined the topic for the reader to get more insight into the topic. The writer also omitted the essay topic background. The background gives and also describes the history and the state of an essay topic while referencing the existing literature. It should not be the main paper focus only, but should generally give the information gathered before the write-up about the issue at hand. Therefore, there was the need for a clear establishment of the essay topic background with the intention of giving the reader critical information concerning the problem being studied. The introduction also does not explain what was to be covered throughout the paper. Explication of the writer's intentions helps the reader follow the essay objectives while reading the rest of the essay.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The writer does not paragraph the work correctly in a coherent manner. In essay writing, a basic paragraph should at least have five sentences consisting of the topic sentence, three sentences to support the main argument and finally the concluding sentence. Each paragraph should be giving information on one main issue. An example of poorly structured sentence is the second sentence which should be structured as follows: "To begin with, children should be vaccinated to avoid measles. Measles is a disease which results to fever, skin rash, and runny nose and may get worse over time resulting to ear infections and even a chronic brain disease called subacute pan encephalitis which occurs after a long duration of measles. Thus, a vaccine should be offered to avoid occurrence of these chronic symptoms."

The author does not offer a standard conclusion. For example, they do not explain why the essay was important for the readers. A final stand about the topic should also be presented in the concluding paragraph, but the writer does not give this. The writer was supposed to give their point of view about the major issue covered throughout the essay, as supported in the body of the write-up.

In the essay, the writer has not clearly stated that there was no link between autism and MMR. At first, the writer says that according to an article by Andrew Wakefield, autism and MMR are linked. Later, the writer says that there was no link between autism and MMR according to the study conducted in November 2002 by the researchers of Massachusetts Medical Society. This confuses the reader since there is no final statement on the issue. The writer has used credible sources of information. The sources which the writer has used are up-to-date since the time of publication does not exceed ten year. Additionally, they are evidence-based, from peer-reviewed journal articles, government databases, and from the medical department of Australia.

The writer effectively addressed how the anti-vaccination movement used miss-information to support their campaign. The writer says that the anti-vaccination movement has dedicated itself to their belief that the health of their children can be maintained without the use of vaccines or pharmaceutical medication. The author is against this. An example is when the writer says that you should not believe everything that you hear until you have hard evidence on the issue. The writer goes further and says that since there is enough evidence that autism is not linked to the MMR vaccinations, then people should believe it. There is also a statement that there are many credible sources that provide that vaccines are harmless but instead fight diseases which could otherwise ruin people's lives.

There is some additional information on how to convince the anti-vaccination movement that vaccines are harmless. First, the anti-vaccination movement believes that vaccines usually contain contaminants (Kata, 2012). It is clear that vaccines do not contain contaminants since they are natural products and also work with a natural system. This movement also tries to convince people not to use vaccination claiming that the compulsory vaccination rules by the government violate the parental civil rights (Cappelli, Gallone, Germinario, Martinelli, Prato, &Tafuri, 2014; Mergler, Omer, Pan, Navar-Boggan, Orenstein, Marcuse & Halsey, 2013). This is not true at all since the vaccination messages to the parents always align with transparency and freedom and thus, they do not infringe the rights of the parents at all.

The author identified why the information presented to the public should be based on valid research. This is evident when the author says that one should never believe any information unless there is enough evidence supporting it. The author says that the information given to the anti-vaccination movement is unreliable. Therefore, to avoid misleading the public, the information provided to them should be from credible sources where valid research has been conducted. Additionally, if the information provided to the public is inaccurate, people will always make bad decisions and they will be unable to help others make the right decisions. Credible information which is not biased is very important especially for a program like vaccination so that people can avoid the confusion which may arise.

The Legitimacy and Credibility of Information Sources

DeStefano, F., Bhasin, T. K., Thompson, W. W., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Boyle, C. (2010). Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.

This reference is legitimate since it can be accessed online. Also, the reference is credible because the information in it is about a study conducted in Metropolitan Atlanta on Mumps and Rubella vaccines in children. It is research-based article which has undergone much review and this justifies its credibility.

Immunise. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2014, from http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/glossary#t

The reference is legitimate as the article can easily be accessed from the internet. This source is credible because it is from a government department which makes it reliable to use in a scientific research paper.

Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Melbye, M. (2002). A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1478-1482.

The article is legitimate because it is available online. It also gives a lot of information on a study about measles, mumps and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. It is a credible source. Although it is not up-to-date, it is peer-reviewed, making it trusted. It also relies on findings from an empirical research and the author does not use biased language while presenting the findings.

Mayo Clinic Staff (2012, October 5). Mumps - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from - http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mumps/basics/definition/con-20019914

This reference is legitimate since the link provided opens successfully and contains information as the author has cited. It is also credible since the information in it talks more about the mumps, its causes, signs and the prevention measure which is vaccination. The language used in the article is unbiased and this further proved the reliability of the article.

Rubella | Better Health Channel. (2013, July). Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Rubella

The reference is not legitimate because it is not possible to open the link provided. To make the source legitimate, the author should recheck the link provided to make sure that it is the correct one. The reference is credible as it comes from the Victoria State government institution, BetterHealth. Also, the author uses unbiased language to present the message.

SAVN | Home. (2012, July). Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://stopavn.com

The reference is legitimate as it is easy to access it from the internet. It gives information on the anti-vaccination group and how they support their campaigns of saying no to vaccines. Therefore the source is credible. Its credibility is also justified by the fact that it is from a research institute, National Centre for Immunization Research & Surveillance (NCIRS). Additionally, the information contained in the article is not biased.

Vaccination - myDr.com.au. (2020, February 28). Retrieved May 25, 2014, from http://www.mydr.com.au/travel-health/vaccination.

The article is legitimate since it can be accessed online and contains the information that the author has provided the citation for. Although it is not a personal website, it cannot be trusted, making it incredible. It is not scholarly, neither is it from a research or governmental institution. It is not research-based and this makes it unreliable for use in a scientific research paper.

Referencing

In-text Citations

The in-text citations to be evaluated are from paragraphs 5, 7, and 8. The in-text citation in paragraph 5 was wrongly placed. The writer fixed the whole reference source instead of just giving the author's name and the year. The reference should be (Andrew Wakefield, 1998). Then paragraph 7 should be (Bhasin, Boyle, DeStefano, Thompson, &Yeargin-Allsopp, 2010). The in-text citation in paragraph 8 should be (Hviid, Madsen, Melbye, Vestergaard, Schendel, Thorsen, & Wohlfahrt, 2002).

Final referencing

Reference Wrongly/correctly referenced Corrected referencing

DeStefano, F., Bhasin, T. K., Thompson, W. W., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Boyle, C. (2010). Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta. Wrongly referenced DeStefano, F., Bhasin, T. K., Thompson, W. W., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Boyle, C. (2004). Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics, 113(2), 259-266.

Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Melbye, M. (2002). A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1478-1482

Wrongly referenced Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., & Melbye, M. (2002). A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1477-1482.

Immunise. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2014, from

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/glossary#t Wrongly referenced Immunise. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/glossary#t.

Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., . . . Melbye, M.

(2002). A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. New

England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1478-1482. Wrong Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Melbye, M.

(2002). A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. New

England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1478-1482.

Mayo Clinic Staff (2012, October 5). Mumps - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic. Retrieved May 28,

2014, from - http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mumps/basics/definition/con-20019914 Wrong Mayo Clinic Staff. (2012, October 5). Mumps - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from HYPERLINK "http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mumps/basics/definition/con-20019914" http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mumps/basics/definition/con-20019914.