Paper A

https://blackboard.byu.edu/courses/1/MF5-20101-1/content/_3061634_1/6-Principles%20of%20Assessment%20and%20Intervention-Brinton_&_Fujiki.pdf?bsession=66472426&bsession_str=session_id=66472426,user_id_pk1=332122,user_id_sos_id_pk2=1,one_time_token=

ARGUMENT:
A: Adopting a a Normativist approach to speech therapy will result in greater improvement in the comminication and quality of life of a patient
B: will result in greater improvement in the comminication and quality of life of a patient

Reason: a Normativist approach focuses on the improvement of speech production in order that the patient become independent and socially competent.

Implicit Assumption: Whatever approach to speech therapy allows the patient to become independent and socially competent will improve their communication and quality of life.

AUDIENCE:
Brinton and Fujiki's audience are students of speech language pathology as well as scholars in the same field. The audience consists of either those who are undecided about adopting a Normativist approach to therapy, or  those who lean more towards the Neutralist approach to therapy.  They may be therapists who rely heavily on norm-referenced testing and quantitative data supporting the effectiveness of their treatment of the patient's immediate problem.

GOAL:
I believe Brinton and Fujiki's goal is to have therapists slow down and consider the long-term effects of their treatment decisions and to choose their approach to therapy according to the patient's best interest for their future well-being.

HOW THE ARGUMENT IS MADE:
Brinton and Fujiki's article appeals mainly to Ethos.  They include several sources to their claims throughout the article as well as give examples from their own case studies.  Being professionals in the field of speech language pathology, I find it adds to their credibility not just to site others who have done this research, but to mention their findings from their own studies.  Therefore their representation is also typical. I find their information is accurate and fair.  Instead of simply tearing down other approaches to therapy, they note the positive points of other approaches. They mention that standardized and norm-referenced tests (which are often highly used by those taking the Neutralist approach) as being effective indications of typical and atypical behavior, giving the approach credit.  And still they establish their argument for the Normativist approach strongly with all of their evidence sited in the document.


EFFECTIVENESS:

I do believe that Fujiki and Brinton made an effective argument for adopting the Normativist approach in order to see more improvement in a patient's long term social independence because of their evidence and case examples listed throughout the article.