Childhood Trauma

902 Words4 Pages
The web, today, has been inundated with a lot of information from both reliable and unreliable persons; Looking up a topic on google yields millions of results in about a quarter of a second. It is up to scientific researchers to filter the useful and reliable information from the garbage; to do that, they have resorted to mainly finding information from reliable, dependable and authentic research reports. Although scientific research reports are thoroughly peer reviewed before released to the public, not all are dependable and effective; the gatekeepers occasionally miss bias and skewed data. For a research report to be considered rhetorically effective, it should most importantly, be written by credible, reliable primary scholars, issued…show more content…
The research investigated the “effects of childhood trauma experiences on HPA-axis activity, comparing saliva cortisol awakening response (CAR) in adult patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) or bulimia nervosa (BN) with CAR in adult healthy controls.” Because the IMRAD article, written by primary and credible scholars, was published in a well-recognized and reputable journal, a deduction can be made that is rhetorically…show more content…
Sticking to the shopping analogy in the previous paragraph, when shopping for an attire, a consumer has an occasion in mind. Writing an article without an audience is like purchasing an expensive ball gown knowing full well that you detest balls and do not plan on going to one; it is an absolute waste of valuable time, money and effort. Evident from the intensive neurological and psychiatric jargon utilized throughout the entire article, it can be unerringly inferred that the intended audience is one that is specialized in neurology and or psychiatry. Specifically, researchers in the area may need the information to conduct other experiments in the same field. Because the article is on eating disorders, a safe assumption can be made that the results could be used to identify other linked neurological risk factors. Like other authors, when writing a document, the authors prioritized the easy comprehension of the information relayed to the intended audience. Although the content of the research may not be comprehensible to the layman on the street, it will be easily understood by the purposeful specialized audience. For example, this statement, “In this three-group comparison, the repeated-measure analysis of covariance controlling for subtype of AN showed that this variable had no significant effects on CAR (F2,6950.39, p5.5),” contextually might make no sense to an unspecialized

More about Childhood Trauma

Open Document