When discussing the 1970s’ parenting decisions and her personal experience with the childcare centre, O’Brien used anecdotes to provide a human angle on the issue and make it seem more relevant. She explains how mothers in the 1970s ‘whooped for joy’ when other children had chicken pox, which is highlighting and old fashioned and uniformed motility. This appeals to the readers’ sense of logic and reasoning to prove her argument, and also to suggest that O’Brien’s writing is true and position the reader not to just respond on an emotional level. The writing also explains her experiences when her child gained chicken pox and was “banished” from the childcare and the staff sent home any other children that were not immunised. She does this to outline the procedures of a modern day organisation’s response to the dangers of non- immunisation by using a personal experience.
O’Brien also positions the reader to think badly of a particular individuals or groups, with the use of attacks. Through the expression “uniformed quacks” it shows emotive language to indicate how she feels about the Australian Vaccination Network and that she believes they are “providing parents with unbiased information”. Alongside her attacks, O’Brien discredits the parents that do not immunise their children. With an aggressive tone, she outlines that children that are not immunised “are much more likely to get sick, often with alarming side- effects”, this is to portray her argument when revealing what the negative effects parents are providing for their children. These techniques gain the reader’s attention by adding emphasis and help them to take into consideration the writer’s argument.
The evidence O’Brien provides in her argument is a further technique to persuade her reader’s. She describes the overwhelming research to show the benefits of vaccinations and discredits those who oppose this evidence. In the form of inclusive language, when