Quindlen reasons that public schools should be able to pass out condoms at school without parental consent. In the first argument, Quindlen uses a hypothetical example to prove her point. She used the example of a 16-year-old boy complaining of pain during urination so he went to the school clinic. He was told the pain was because he has contracted a sexually transmitted disease and it could have been avoided by using a condom. The teen requested condoms, at which point, the nurse was required to check a parental consent list that does not allow certain children to participate in the school wide condom distribution program. Quindlen leads us to believe that this student walked out of the clinic, not knowing whether or not his parents agreed to him having condoms and ended up with a massive case of chlamydia.…show more content… She could have provided an anonymous survey that the students took, showing they would all have responded the same way as this teen boy. Making up examples is never a good way to try to persuade a reader because there are not any facts to back up the claim. Facts could have come from the previous survey mentioned above, case studies, or statistical evidence proving this is typical in these types of scenarios. In Quindlen’s second argument, she brings in a medical professional, Dr. Cohall, a pediatrician overseeing New York City clinics in three different high schools. Cohall believes condoms being passed out in the school will alleviate the number of sexually transmitted disease cases, seen in his clinics each year. In 1992, he saw 150 cases from those three high schools alone. He goes on to say that relying on the parents to educate the students about such matters is a fantasy, therefore education needs to be handled at the school
