Standardizations: Should Wearing of Mask Be or Not Be Mandatory for the Duration of the Pandemic.

Wearing of Mask 1

Standardizations: Should Wearing of Mask Be or Not Be Mandatory for the Duration of the Pandemic.

I.

Standardisation

C: Wearing the mask should be mandatory for the duration of the pandemic.

1: The number of cases of the covid-19 virus is likely to increase unless something is done.

1.1: The spread of fake news by anti-maskers that masks are ineffective and are against our inalienable rights.

1.1.1: Wearing masks, just like wearing seatbelts, does not infringe on our freedoms.

1.1.2: Wearing masks, just like stopping at traffic lights, will protect others.

[Sub-premises 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 are linked] 1.2: The use of social media platforms by disinformation agents and conspiracy theorists to spread misinformation about the covid-19 virus.

1.2.1: Spread of alarming and fake news about effectiveness of masks.

[Sub-premises 1.1 and 1.2 are linked] 2: Mandating the wearing of masks in public places will curtail the spread of covid-19.

2.1 Mask reduces the distance over which breath travels, reducing the spread since the virus is transmitted in respiratory droplets.

Wearing of Mask 2

2.2: Countries wearing masks have been successful at tackling the virus.

[Sub-premises 2.1 and 2.2 are linked] 3: People obey authority, and as a leader people will look to you to lead.

3.1: People will not wear a mask if not told to do so by leaders.

3.1.1: People's fate is in the hands of the leaders.

[Premises 2 and 3 are linked; Premises 1 is convergent] C: Wearing masks should not be mandatory for the pandemic.

1: People of Royston Vasey are decent and do not need to be told what to do by the government, as doing so would be harmful.

1.1: Forcing people to wear masks infringes on their personal freedom and liberty.

1.2: People in the community will not stand being ordered to wear a certain item of clothing.

[Sub-premises 1.1 and 1.2 and linked] 2: It is not clear that wearing masks is an effective strategy to tackle the spread of covid-19.

2.1: Masks increase the risk that people will catch the virus.

2.1.1: People do not wear masks properly because of inexperience of wearing masks.

2.1.2: Medical experts also struggle to wear masks properly.

Wearing of Mask 3

[Sub-premises 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are linked] 3: People obey authority, and as a leader, people will look to you to lead.

3.1: There is a general misconception about wearing masks.

3.1.1: Masks only protect others and not those wearing them.

3.1.2: Wearing masks makes and exposes those wearing them to an increased level of danger.

[Sub-premises 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are linked] 4: The wearing of masks should be restricted to the frontline in the healthcare sector.

4.1: There is a limited supply of masks and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

4.2: We should be reserving masks for those who need it most.

[Sub-premises 4.1 and 4.2 are linked] 5: Several people are unable to wear masks for medical reasons.

5.1: They are distressed by being forced to do something harmful to their health.

5.2: Opinion that there are people unable to wear masks should be considered.

[Sub-premises 5.1 and 5.2 are linked] [Premises 2 and 3 are linked; Premises 1, 4, and 5 are convergent]

Wearing of Mask 4

II.

Strength and Weakness of the Argument

Main Argument: Considering the importance of wearing masks in public places, linked premises 2 and 3 provide strong support for making the wearing of masks in public to be mandatory. The strength of the main point follows from deductive sub-arguments used to support premises 2 and 3.

Linked Premises 2 and 3: Premises 2 is strongly supported by the deductive argument constructed in sub-premises 2.1.

This sub-premises is the reason why premises 2 should be accepted. Sub-premises 2.1 is supported by the research conducted by Verma et al. (2020). The research shows that wearing masks reduces the distance over which breathe travel compared to unmasked exhaled breath, which travels over 2.5 meters. However, sub-premises 2.2 is an argument from analogy, which is strengthened by the positive similarities from other countries. Although the analog is unspecified, as we do not know other efforts these other countries have put into ensuring a decline in the number of covid-19 virus cases, many countries are receiving positive results from wearing masks, is the reason enough to accept premises 2.

Although arguments in sub-premises 3.1 and 3.1.1 provide unsupported claims, they provide strong support for premises 3 to be accepted. People indeed obey the authority, and if wearing masks is made mandatory, they will wear them, leading to a reduced number of covid-19 cases.

Linked premises 2 and 3 ultimately strengthen the main argument.

Wearing of Mask 5

Premises 1: The arguments from analogy in sub-premises 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 weaken the argument in subpremises 1.1, which strengthens the argument in premises 1. Additionally, since the argument from analogy is specified, the impacts that come with wearing seat belts and stopping at traffic lights are known, making the wearing of masks as mandatory may have impacts in reducing covid-19 cases. Thus, premises 1 supports the main argument.

Main Argument: The linked premises 2 and 3 provide strong support for the main argument, which is against the mandatory wearing of masks. The support of premises 2 and 3 is strengthened by inductive and analogy arguments in sub-premises 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, and sub-premises 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, as discussed below.

Linked premises 2 and 3: Sub-premises 2.1 is supported by inductive argument in sub-premises 2.1.1 and analogy argument constructed in sub-premises 2.1.2. Sub-premises 2.1.2 is supported by Barrett's (2020) research, which suggests that if medical experts were struggling to wear masks, then people would be struggling to wear them as well. In turn, the argument in sub-premises 2.1 supports premises 2.

Also, despite the unsupported claims in sub-premises 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, these sub-premises' arguments strongly support inductive arguments in sub-premises 3.1. Thus, sub-premises 3.1 supports the argument in premise 3.

Linked premises 2 and 3 ultimately supports the main argument.

Wearing of Mask 6

Premises 1: The inductive argument in sub-premises 1.1 and casual claim in sub-premises 1.2 weakens the argument in premises 1. However, sub-premises 1.1 is supported by Paynter's (2020) research, which shows that people believe that a requirement to wear a face mask infringes on their personal freedoms. Therefore, premises 1 provides weak support for the main argument.

Premises 4: The deductive arguments in sub-premises 4.1 and 4.2 strongly support the argument on premises 4. Research by Jacobs et al. (2020) conforms with these sub-premises, in that it shows that there is a limited stockpile of face masks and that the available face masks should be given to frontline health workers. However, the arguments in sub-premises 4.1 and 4.2 are weak, in that they contrast with the earlier arguments made by Dagless (2020), in sub-premises 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

Therefore, premises 4 weakens the strength of the main argument.

Premises 5: The inductive argument in sub-premises 5.1 and unsupported claim in sub-premises 5.2 weakens the argument in premises 5. Although the arguments in sub-premises 5.1 and 5.2 strongly support premises 5, it has weak support towards the main argument.

Wearing of Mask 7

III.

Language, Rhetoric, and Bias

The use of the statement "they are the right thing to do" regarding wearing masks in public places primes the readers to accept the mandatory wearing of masks as it is important and convenient. The language used here is emotionally appealing to the readers as it touches on their conscience.

The statement "anyone who says otherwise needs to grow up" evokes guilt for those who fail to wear masks, making wearing masks in public places a mature thing to do.

The repetition of the phrase "fake news" almost throughout the paper is used to persuade readers to accept the mandatory wearing of masks, as information against it is nothing but just lies and fake news.

Emotive language in statements such as "wearing masks protects others" and "…is a social responsibility" used by the author to emphasize that wearing masks in public places is a social responsibility that everyone should undertake .

A phrase like "a drastic difference" creates a positive spin in favour of wearing masks in public places. The phrase shows that it is important to wear masks to reduce the spread of the covid-19 virus.

The use of phrases like "social responsibility" shows how the author is trying to normalize wearing masks and shows that it is a societal thing to wear masks. The phrase emphasizes on how wearing masks will protect everyone in society.

Wearing of Mask 8

The statement "it doesn't take a medical doctor to see the link here" shows how obvious is the importance of wearing masks in public places. It is obvious that wearing masks reduces the spread of the covid-19 virus, as seen in the countries that have successfully tackled the virus.

The proof of bias in Sanchez's (2020) research is evident by the citation of only one research supporting wearing masks to curt the virus's spread. The author only uses Verma et al.’s (2020) research to support the main argument, neglecting other research that could have provided more support.

The statement "the people of our town are decent" invokes the language that dismisses mandatory wearing of masks in public places because people know what to do without being told by the government. The statement shows that the government does not have to force people to wear masks as it infringes people's personal freedom and liberty.

The phrase "it is not how we do things" primes the readers not to accept the mandatory wearing of masks in public places as it is wrong to force people to wear masks as a way of curtailing the spread of the covid-19 virus because forcing people to wear masks will undermine the legitimacy of this.

The author uses phrases like "our town" and "our communities" to emphasize that the forceful wearing of masks will affect the local community as a whole. The author uses these phrases also to win the trust of the readers since it is emotionally appealing.

The rhetoric question, "what chance have members of the general public got?" implies that it would be challenging for them to wear the masks properly because of unused experience. This rhetoric question allows the reader to imagine the difficulties that people will face in wearing masks, especially when it is difficult for medical experts to wear them as they too struggle. Also,

Wearing of Mask 9

the rhetoric question "do you want that on your conscience?" invokes readers' emotions, making them not accept the mandatory wearing of masks to reduce the spread of the covid-19 virus.

The confirmation bias is apparent as the author only cites research conducted by Barrett (2020). The author uses information from this research to support the main argument.

IV.

Recommendations

Judging from the two submissions, it would be recommendable for the mayor, Dean Learner, to understand that Dr. Lucien Sanchez provided strong arguments compared to those provided by Dr. Rick Dagless. Although both doctors provided evidence supporting their main argument, most of the evidence provided by Dagless (2020) is weak and does not provide much-needed support to the main argument.

If Dr. Rick Dagless’ submission was to be approved, it would be based on premises of lack of clarity on the effectiveness of wearing masks and the misconceptions about wearing masks (premises 2 and 3). However, these claims have been refuted by Dr. Lucien Sanchez, where the clarity on the effectiveness of the masks has been explained (premises 2). On the other hand, the evidence by Dr. Sanchez is supported by Verma et al. (2020).

Additionally, the arguments by Dr. Dagless contradict each other. The arguments contradict each other in that premises 3 suggests that masks do not protect those wearing them but others, while premises 4 suggests that masks protect them.

For this reason, Dr. Rick Dagless' submission should not be approved.

Wearing of Mask 10

When informing the two groups on your decisions, Dr. Dagless should be made to understand why arguments he provided were weak and shown how Dr. Lucien refuted his claims using well-supported evidence. This will help both groups to settle their differences.

Word Count: 2012 Reference List Barratt, R. (2020). Are Australian medical interns adequately prepared for the optimal use of personal protective equipment?

Wearing of Mask 11

Dagless, R. (2020). ‘No Letter Submission to the Royston Vasey Local Interests Subcommittee’.

Jacobs, A., Richtel, M., & Baker, M. (2020). At war with no ammo': doctors say the shortage of protective gear is dire. New York Times.

Paynter, J. (2020). Face masks Melbourne: Quarter believe requirement infringes personal freedom.

Sanchez, L. (2020). ‘Yes, Letter Submission to the Royston Vasey Local Interests Subcommittee’.

Verma, S., Dhanak, M., & Frankenfield, J. (2020). Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets. Physics of Fluids, 32(6), 061708.