Rhetorical Analysis: Source for Paper B

"Breastfeeding Reduces Cancer Risk"
By Lorna Vanderhaeghe
https://www.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/remoteauth.pl?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awh&AN=14280520&site=ehost-live&scope=site

1. Identify the Argument
Breastfeeding is better than formula and breastfeeding reduces the rick of breast cancer in women as well.

2. Target Audience
Women who are either breastfeeding or pregnant and considering whether or not to breastfeed. They could be married or single but are probably between the ages of 18 and 35. They are probably somewhat educated considering that they are looking for research in peer-reviewed journals to find out about the benefits of breastfeeding.

3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Because the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, you know that it's not completely made up. The author has written books about nutrition and has a degree in biochemistry. She is a medical journalist as well. She has a formal but comfortable tone with her anudience, citing studies, but also not talking too scientifically. All her sources are scientific studies done by credible sources.
Pathos - She appeals to her readers's emotions by telling them what good things will happen to their babies if they breastfeed, and what bad things can happen if they don't - it's an appeal to maternal instincts. And talking about how encouragement, love and support are needed to help new moms to be successful in breastfeeding as along as possible lets her readers's feel that the author cares about them and cares a lot about what she is writing about.
Logos - The author uses experimental data from mutliple scientific sources - The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children and The Lancet Medical Journal. She also makes the findings of the reasearch done by these organizations more accessible to readers by simplifying the language so that they can understand what they say, which makes it easier for their findings to appeal to the logic of the masses. She also draws on her medical knowledge to talk about blood pressure and she includes statistics about how many monthers breastfeed, etc. to help prover her points.
Sufficient Evidence - I think she uses sufficient evidence to prove that breastmilk is better than formula, but she mentions in the first and last paragraphs of the article that breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer in mothers, but never says anything about it anywere else in the article. There is no evidence to support it, she just throws it out there and leaves it hanging.
4. Was it effective and Why?
I think her argument for breastfeeding over formula was effective because of the scientific evidence used and the nature of her appeal. How a woman feels about her baby is a very emotional thing and appealing to her concerns about making sure that her child is healthy contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. But in terms of her argument about breast cancer risk being reduced during nursing, her argument isn't effective at all because it isn't even really an argument. She makes a statement and then she doesn't back it up with anything.