John McMurtry's essay begins with a personal anecdote about the results of playing sports especially football since childhood. When he can no longer ignore his physical condition, he seeks treatment and is hospitalized. how does the anecdote lend credibility to his argument.
Since he has experienced first hand the risks of football, what he says is more likely to be heard. All lot of people like to rant and rave about how football is an uncivilized sport that results in nothing but pain and suffering for the players, but these people have never played football and are most likely against any sort of violence. McMurtry has actually played football and likes it, making his account more believable since he is actually experiencing the ordeal.
Paragraphs 5-7 compare and contrast football and war. Is this comparison convincing? How does the comparison appeal to logos?
The comparison is convincing because he gives many valid reasons for is statement such as "Their languages are similar," and "their principals and practices are alike." He shows that people use the same terms to describe situations in both football and war, and he also show how both football and war consist of "mass hysteria, the art of intimidation, territorial aggression, drills, and formations." This comparison appeals to logos because he uses a multitude of examples to support his comparison.
In paragraph 14, McMurtry cites a Harvard study showing that some of the more brutal characteristics of football players are valued in the business world. How do the study's findings support McMurtry"s argument against the brutality of football?
It doesn't really help his argument against football brutality, since people in the business world are saying that they like these characteristics in these football players. This sort of presents a fallacy in his argument since it is counter productive in his argument.
Consider the language of football, especially the words shared by the military. What sports ather than football have a militaristic side?
Paintball is another sport that is in some way biased on war since the goal of the game is to "kill" the opponent or hold the fort against and invading army. Some of the exact same commands are used in paintball by team mates or the commanding officer to advance the team and lead them to victory. It is also a very competitive and aggressive sport, sometime bringing out the more primal side in the people that play it.
Our answers are very similar and you used good quotes to make it sound educated. You rock.
ReplyDeleteOur answers to question number four were completely different. I pointed out how society has adapted to praise brutality and he is saying that is a bad thing because if brutality is praised, more people are going to be unafraid to harm others.
ReplyDeleteThe Harvard study represents the beginning of a counterargument that could potentially be made against the author. McMurtry indicates his contempt for such an argument with his ironic "Smash Thy Neighbor" line, which also operates on the assumption that violence is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteNo fallacies here, cacabreath.