Case Study #1: Healthcare Case Anika and Daniel, two geriatric nurses, are discussing a patient with worsening dementia. Anika insists they should continue following the doctor’s orders to use a mixture

Kindly click here to proceed with this order or request a similar one…..

Case Study #1: Healthcare Case

Anika and Daniel, two geriatric nurses, are discussing a patient with worsening dementia. Anika insists they should continue following the doctor’s orders to use a mixture of cholinesterase inhibitors to treat the patient. In her view, because the doctor’s orders are based on peer-reviewed literature and because rigorous testing has shown that these inhibitors help prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine (a chemical that helps brain cells communicate), these orders are likely to help their patient. Daniel judges this peer-reviewed research and testing as unreliable merely because he believes that mainstream treatments doctors recommend never work. He is frustrated by the lack of improvement so far and thinks they should try something else.

Daniel then shares that he recently performed an online search on “alternative approaches to cholinesterase inhibitors” and found an online health forum where caregivers claim that exposure to certain frequencies of sound helped memory retention. He shares a story about his grandmother who listened to classical music and seemed sharper afterward. He then points out that a well-known wellness influencer recently talked about the effectiveness of a new sound therapy device that emits healing frequencies, and that many of the influencer’s audience members have ordered the device already. He suggests buying one of these devices for the patient.

When Anika expresses doubt, Daniel responds, “Nurses should be willing to try anything that might help. Since this might help, we must give it a try. Also, you are from the Midwest, so it is clear that your medical reasoning should not be trusted.”

1.  Choose onecase study from “Case Studies” in the Supporting Documents section of this task.

1.  From the case study chosen in part A, identify the premise(s) and conclusion of a single, distinct argument from oneperson, using clear labels (e.g., Premise 1, Premise 2 [if applicable], etc., Conclusion), and do the following:
2.  Explain why the single, distinct argument identified in part B is deductive or inductive.
3.  Discuss why the single, distinct argument identified in part B is valid or invalid (for a deductive argument) OR strong or weak (for an inductive argument).

Note: Before starting part C, review Section 4, Lesson 4 in the course to understand argument mapping and see examples.

1.  Create one argument map of the single, distinct argument outlined in part B, using numbered circles for propositions and arrows for support

Note: The argument map can be drawn by hand and inserted into your document as a JPG, GIF, or PNG or created by inserting shapes and text in your word processing document. See “How to Create and Draw an Argument Map” in the Supporting Documents section for directions.

1.  Identify oneinformation source in the chosen case study.
2.  Discuss the reliability of the information source.

1.  Identify onepotential type of bias in the chosen case study.
2.  Explain the impact of this type of bias in the chosen case study.

1.  State the name of onefallacy in the chosen case study (e.g., hasty generalization, ad hominem).
2.  Summarize the instance of this fallacy present in the chosen case study.

1.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

 No more than 30% of your written response can match other sources.

Kindly click here to proceed with this order or request a similar one…..