Argumentation & Evaluation Guide

1. 1 5 6 4 3 8 7 9 2 Topic__Autism_ Title_Science disputes autism’s diet link _ Source_Hayley Mick: Monday’s Globe and Mail 5/8/07________________________________________________ Argumentation & Evaluation Guide Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ What is the Claim, including any Qualifiers? Are there qualifiers? Yes/No. (If yes, underline them.) Gluten-free, casein-free diet reduces symptoms in autistic children, but there is no scientific proof that this diet works. What chain of reasoning (warrant) connectsthe evidence to the claim? In column 6, identify type of reasoning with the letter(s): for AUTHORITY (A), THEORY (T), or type of LOGIC: Analogy (AN), Correlation (C), Cause-Effect (CE), Generalization (G) What Evidence is presented? In column 3, identify the type of evidence with the letter: Data (D), Fact (F), Opinion (O), Theory (T). “Leaky-gut syndrome”-: undigested bits of protein are absorbed through intestines affecting the brain, producing autism symptoms T Parents report kids do better with GFCF diet G/A/C? Multiple anecdotal reports from parents and doctors O Fringe group of health professionals (DAN) recommends GFCF diet O Leaky-gut syndrome, GFCF not well digested leads to symptoms T Gluten & casein are not well digested by autistic kids F? No scientific evidence that diet works CE Protein compounds wreak havoc with children’s neurologic development T T Double-blind study finds no effect CE Doctors & labs profit from selling vitamins and tests. F “Works for my child must work for all” G Dairy products have casein and grains have gluten F 40% of autistic children might benefit from dietary changes G Placebo effect is gigantic (Dr. Buie). O Evaluate the quality of the evidence as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation. Poor Evaluate the quality of the chain of reasoning as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation. Strength of Authority Application of Theory Type of Logic Poor for anecdotal support. Good for scientific studies Reliable No, because it is anecdotal and not from research. Yes for double blind study. Valid Questionable without more scientific studies. Poor, not yet tested enough Objective (no bias) Biased, placebo effect, profit for doctors and labs Generalization – poor anecdotal evidence Cause and effect – good controlled study Methodology Poor for anecdotal data. Good for double blind study. What are your concerns about the believability of the claim? (your counterarguments, rebuttals or new questions)? There needs to be more controlled studies before claim can be supported. I am concerned that there is a strong bias toward the diet that is not supported by research. Accept, reject, or withhold judgment about the claim. Explain your judgment. Withhold judgment, because research does not support claim. C Bulgren revised 10/1//2008

2. No scientific proof that diet works (mainstream scientists) Dr. Buie: some research suggests 40% of children with autism could benefit from dietary change Double-blind study in J. of Autism and Dev. Disorder: no sign. improvement. Evidence continued