Argument Analysis In the article, “Random Drug Testing of Athletes”, the author, Darla Tappins, argues that student athletes should not be required to participate in random drug tests. She provides six main reasons in effort to support her claim. These include the unfair stereotyping towards athletes who are no more likely to be involved in drug use than nonathletes, the unreliability and inaccuracy of the drug tests, the high costs of performing such tests, the unnecessary time consumption they require, the uncomfortability of those required to partake in them, as well as the inability of tests to detect steroid use, which is the most common drug exploited by athletes. Overall, the author does an ineffective job of proving her claim and evaluating …show more content…
the issue. One way that Tappins fails to present a sufficient argument is that she does not include a proper range of appeals throughout the writing.
The article consists of a fair amount of logos, however, it falls short when it comes to ethos and pathos. While it is true that too much emotional pull can take away from the concept of using facts to make a point, Tappins completely ignores any sense of sentiment that the reader could have had towards the issue, which decreases the interest they have overall. In addition to that, there are multiple times where Tappins claims that “Research shows…” something without providing any sort of citation. For example, in the first paragraph, the last sentence states, “Research shows that drug testing public school athletes is not a good idea because it singles out athletes from all of the students in the school and suspects them of using drugs it is also a waste of time and money, and consists of low accuracy tests that so not always give the correct results”. This severely harms the credibility of the article, leaving the reader to wonder if there is even in fact any reliable information to begin with. Appeals are definitely one of the aspects of the article that requires the most …show more content…
improvement. Another area of Tappins’s article that could use enhancement is the evidence and warrants utilized. There are many options available when it comes to types of evidence including facts, statistics, anecdotes, expert testimony, and eyewitness accounts. Tappin chooses to use facts and expert testimonies the most to support her claim, with some statistics and an anecdote used as well. The issue with the facts and the testimonies that are provided is the lack of credibility, which is previously mentioned. If no source is given for a fact that is used, then the reader has no way of knowing whether or not the information is accurate. The expert testimonies the author provides, mostly cited after someone by the name of William Bailey from the article “Suspicionless Drug Testing in School” fail to acknowledge anything about the expert. No occupation or background information is mentioned, which is essential in making this kind of evidence helpful and effective. Tappins also fails to provide adequate warrants. Often times throughout the article, the warrant for a piece of evidence is far longer than it should be, due to the repetition and inefficient wording of explanations. This results in a much more lengthy argument, which contains quite a bit of redundant information. Overall, the reader can generally understand how the warrant connects the evidence to the claim, but not without some confusion and having to read through unnecessarily long paragraphs that could be condensed into much smaller clauses. Tappins also fails to present effective word choice in her essay.
This lack of careful crafting in her argument leaves the appeal to pathos much less developed than it could be. The cause of her inefficient dictation is not the complete absence of loaded words, but rather the continuous repetition of the words used, and the repeating of the situation in which they are placed. Over and over, the same few words can be seen recurring in the exact same context. For example, the words “extremely”, and “waste”, are applied to describe the high costs of drug tests and to say that they aren’t worth the time or money required, respectively. Both of these provide a negative connotation. While negative words can be very useful to negate the opposing claim’s argument, using them exclusively can create an imbalance in the writing due to the lack of words supporting the author’s claim. On the contrary, Tappins does avoid absolute language for the most part, making sure to use phrases such as “more likely” and “no more likely”, however there are exceptions to that behavior throughout the article. For example, one line says that, “These facts show that schools have no reason to single out athletes…”. This is a bold statement because it overshadows any possible reason to look at athletes separately from the school population in terms of drug use. The ignorance used with this absolute language harms the credibility of the article further. To add to the stumbling integrity of the argument, the
tone seems apathetic and detached. It seems as if the author was lacking focus and concentration when writing. The absence of strong word choice and the presence of repetition in her argument points and explanations takes away from the writing’s connection to the reader. This creates a confused mood and prevents the reader from not only agreeing with the claim, but even understanding it. All in all, there are many ways in which the word choice could be improved to enhance the argument. Another way in which Tappins’s argument displays ineffectiveness is within its structure.
The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the use of screening procedures for student athletes is incorrect. . After an intense beginning in court, the judge denied the Actons.... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited Andrews, Mackenson.
... athletes to do as they please. However he does not do a good job of being non-partisan. He leads his readers to believe the only group of people who would do such things are “jocks”. This bias is not true. The newspapers report that University fraternities, and secret societies are as likely, if not more likely, to commit these very same acts. He also leads the reader to believe that all athletes and athletic teams are similar. The impression he leaves about the majority of teams and their members is prejudicial and unfair. It is very unfortunate and disheartening that members of a community that were so highly reguarded, would commit such acts. It is even more disturbing to hear about the scenario leading up to the rape, and the community which produced these troubled young men. It is more important to look at why the events took place rather than who committed them, because ultimately the only innocent person involved is the victim, a mentally handicapped young girl, named Lesli Faber.
In “The Real Scandal,” Sharon Begley and Martha Brant develop an argument against the tacit allowance of the use of “banned” performance-enhancing drugs among Olympic athletes. The 1999 Newsweek cover story details incidents involving individual athletes caught using banned substances, the continuous race between the discovery and detection of new performance-enhancing drugs, and examples of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC’s) complacency. In particular, the authors question the validity of the IOC’s current drug testing policies and protocols within the context of their self-defined role to “lead the fight against doping in sport” and “encourage and support measures protecting the health of athletes” (Organization). In order to better argue against doping in sport and advocate for more efficient and rigorous drug testing, Begley and Brant employ emotional appeals, logic, and a kairotic stance within their writing to persuade their audience of the necessity of firm action by the IOC and the worldwide community on the subject of performance-enhancing drug abuse.
Citius, Altius, Fortius is the motto of the Olympic games. Translated from Greek, it means "Faster, Higher, Stronger". Recently, Olympic contenders have been doing everything they can to live up to that motto. Most do it by training hour after hour, each day. Others try to do it by illegally taking performance enhancing drugs. This is why we need to test for drugs at the Olympics. Drug Testing in the Olympics began only recently in the 1968 Games held in Mexico1. Drugs are banned for two very good reasons: the use of drugs produces an unfair advantage, and it is hazardous to the athlete to take them. While drug testing is now commonplace, the procedures are still fairly primitive and arouse much controversy2. We all remember the Andreea Raducan situation from the Sydney Olympics. She unknowingly had consumed a performing enhancing drug that was in her cold medication. Her medal was revoked as soon as the drug test results got back.3 While Andreea was caught, many others who intentionally "doped up" weren't Many of the drugs or procedures out there, still can't be tested for, and more and more athletes are cheating. Most of the drugs and procedures have adverse long term effects, some resulting in death. The drug tests are detrimental to the existence of the Olympics and need to be upheld at all costs.
The use of illegal substances in sports is a trendy topic in today’s society. In the last few years a copious amount of players have been under the spotlight of substance abuse, which led to a punishment for their actions. Andrew Sullivan wrote an article in the year 2004 called “In a Drugged-up Nation, the Steroid Sports Star is King”, in which he illustrates how these “pharmaceuticals” have revolutionized sports around the world but mostly in America. These drugs have had a large influence in the overall performance of the players, even if it the use of drugs is “often denied or simply overlooked”(Sullivan 1), it will lead to a lack of judgment in what is right and what is wrong.
The genre of this article is an editorial. When the audience reads an editorial, they know there is going to be strong opinions and most likely some bias. With the genre of an editorial, though, readers are going to observe phrases and opinions authors would not use in other genres. An example of this is where The Editorial Board says “They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued.” (Editorial Board, screen 4) Throughout the article, The Editorial Board included ethos, logos, and pathos in various ways. The Editorial Board represents itself very well and seems to have impeccable credentials and authority. The Editorial Board seems very trustworthy because of the members’ credentials and how publicized The Editorial Board’s editorials are. In the article, facts and evidence are found periodically, meaning that the article is factual to an extent. The Editorial Board presents more facts and evidence that are in support of African Americans than Caucasians, meaning that there is some bias in this article. There are some direct observations included in the logos also. The Editorial Board attempts to invoke an emotional response by saying “The movement sought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way used
Should we care and try to clean up the mess of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The effect of it is starting to trickle down to younger age groups. It started out in the pro’s, now in college, and actually even more current it’s starting as early as high school. If people want a clean and fair game then the heads of the pro football league and college football should be strict on all the testing’s. It’s getting out of hand and David’s exact words are right on point.
Abstract: Since the beginning of sports competition, athletes have always looked for some kind of an edge over their competitors. They will do whatever it takes to be one of the elite and that includes injecting supplements into their bodies to make them bigger, stronger, and faster. Steroid use is probably one of the most common drug misuses in sports competition. Athletes found that with anabolic steroids one could become a better athlete twice as fast. Not until 1975 was the drug first banned from Olympic competition because of the health risks it produced. Shortly thereafter, the rest of the sports world did not allow anabolic steroids as well. With the use of steroids no longer permitted athletes began to look for other alternatives. On the rise is two substances called creatine and androstenedione, both of which are sold over the counter. These two performance enhancers have only had minimal testing done on them, excluding the long-term effects, simply because they haven't been around long enough. Creatine and androstenedione have been said to produce results like steroids without the side effects. The truth is they do produce side effects and irregular muscle growth. By banning the use of performance enhancing drugs, just like steroids, sports competition will have a much healthier and fairer environment to participate in.
In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.
Mitten, Matthew J. "Is Drug Testing of Athletes Necessary?" USA Today. Vol. 134. 2005. 60-62. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
Sisson effectively gets his argument about drugs in sports across by correctly using Aristotle’s ethos, pathos and logos. Sisson gains the audiences trust by telling them about his past history in the field of drugs in sports. Then he tells personal stores and gives examples on how athletes are treated unfair to make the audience feel that the people that are in charge are at fault not the athletes. Sisson has reached his goal about getting the argument out the public effectively and get his audience to question the next breaking news story about athletes supposedly caught taking drugs to enhance performance.
“A medical dictionary defines a drug as ‘any substance that when taken into the living organism may modify one or more of its functions’” (Newton 12). However, when speaking of drug testing for abuse a person is usually thinking about illegal drugs or drugs that can alter athletic performance in sporting events. Mandatory drug testing was not allowed in public schools until June 2002 when the Supreme Court allowed for public schools to do random drug testing (Carroll 23). This decision allowed for drug testing in all schools throughout the United States not just for athletes but also students who are in any activities within the school, for example clubs and competitive events (Carroll 23). Even though drug testing is now allowed by the Supreme Court many schools do not yet have mandatory drug test policies. Mandatory drug testing for high school athletes should be required because it decreases drug use in schools, is relatively inexpensive, and can prevent drug use and or abuse that can lead to a lifelong addiction.
..., Kjetil K. "Why We Shouldn’t Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport." Academia.edu. Academia.edu, 1 Apr. 2011. Web. 06 Jan. 2014. .
Today, drug use in sport has reached enormous proportions in society and is destroying athletics from the ground up. Nowhere is the problem more serious than in professional athletics, where athletes, coaches and trainers misuse drugs in search of ways of ways to improve performance. Many athletes fail to take their time when making the decision whether to use drugs to their advantage. Unfortunately athletes may use drugs for therapeutic indications, recreatio9nal or social reasons, as muscular aids or to mask the presence of other drugs during drug testing. But the safety of the athlete's health is being neglected. Drug use has led to an increased number of deaths and suspensions of athletes. Also, if this continues all athletes someday will have to choose whether to compete at a world-class level and take drugs, or compete at a club level and be clean. In sports, athletes, coaches and trainers will try their best to find a way to reach the top level. They not only search for a way to enhance performance...
...thlete under twenty-four hour surveillance is neither feasible nor lawful. Only when there are more accurate tests can the enforcement of drug rules and regulations be possible. As more sophisticated tests come to market, fewer drugs will escape detection. With the limited ability of current techniques to catch athletes red-handed, pressure must be put on the athletic community to reject doping. Until the athletic community refuses doping as a means to an end, little can be done to stop it from happening.