Composition.colostate.edu



JS2/18/2014Final Draft“Should College Athletes be Paid? Why, They Already Are” Rhetorical AnalysisIn a column style article written by Seth Davis titled, Should College Athletes be paid? Why, They Already Are, published in Sports Illustrated, he rejects the idea that College Athletes should be paid, expresses how students are already compensated, and combats the article written chronologically earlier by Taylor Branch titled, The Shame of College Sports. In a time where college athletes are virtual celebrities and the idea of paid students grows with each March Madness tournament and BCS National Championship game, the argument remains; should athletes be financially compensated for their athletic prowess? Seth Davis a writer for the magazine Sports Illustrated and a sports analyst for CBS Sports Network expresses to the sports world and the readers of Taylor Branch’s article, that student athletes are already being financially compensated with a “free education” along with other ethical benefits. With the help of a certain tone of writing, along with an appeal of ethos and pathos, Seth Davis effectively communicates with his intended audience how student athletes are already being paid as well as competently refuting the argument of Taylor Branch.An important style or device that Davis uses throughout his article to make his argument effective is his tone throughout the piece. The tone throughout the article is very calm and mellow suggesting that Davis knows what he’s talking about and whole heartedly agrees with his argument. An example of this could be when he talks about what the definition of being “paid” is. There is no objectivity in his writing; Davis is just simply stating that there is no specific definition to what is considered being a paid student athlete. This sense of calm allows for the audience to think about the scenario in a clear mind rather than a heated discussion where people don’t think rationally. Another example of Davis’ tone is when he questions why universities have school athletics. “That [Universities] think sports is a worthy investment because it gives tens of thousands of young people the opportunity to learn discipline, teamwork, and time management alongside calculus and English lit?” questions Davis. This excerpt shows the effectiveness of Davis’s tone and the point he is trying to get across because it again allows for rational thinking in a calm manner.The second rhetorical element in Davis’ article that makes him effective is his appeal to ethos and establishing this sense of credibility to his writing. An initial “trustworthiness” is already established in the prologue to the article when Davis explains his title; a frequent writer for Sports Illustrated and analyst for CBS Sports Network. The audience, any sports follower, automatically gives believability to his claims because he is a journalist in the most famous sports magazine in the world. Davis then continues throughout the entire piece, illuminating facts pointed out by the opposing side to the argument. In this case, that opposing side is Taylor Branch and the article he infamously wrote, The Shame of College Sports. Davis begins by complementing Branch’s article and then furthers into praising Branch. “Branch’s article represents a brilliant piece of reporting, which is not surprising considering he won a Pulitzer Prize...” exclaims Davis. This whole excerpt gives Davis credibility because he is combating a Pulitzer Prize winner and explaining why his argument is clearly the correct argument. The foundation of Davis’ article is predicated on the fact that he acknowledges almost every main idea in Branch’s article and then refutes it. This basic blueprint to the article is powerful because it shows that he is knowledgeable to the ethical discussion and still chose this particular side. Finally, the author then begins to slice Branch’s article as if he were cutting up a loaf of bread. “…when it comes to analysis, fairness, and context, Branch’s work leaves much to be desired. If there is a reasonable counterargument to be made, Branch ignores it” suggests Davis. This simple statement proposes that not only is Davis going to include the opposing argument, but mocks Branch in the sense of, “how could you possibly leave out the other side?” Both of these suggestions scream credibility and integrity. An appeal to pathos is the final component that Davis includes in his article. There is an emotional appeal throughout the article that Davis confesses and it all stems from one basic question, is it fair that college athletes are being paid in tuition money? Why don’t we all get paid for our particular skill and trade? This basic question brings out a sense of vulnerability in the given audience since every person has some type of skill or trade they wish they were paid handsomely for. Davis then continues in his emotional appeal by adding humor to a rather serious ethical debate. The author beckons that Branch uses the mandatory argument that these student athletes are being exploited. “As a father of three children under the age of eight, I can only pray that someone “exploits” my sons someday by giving them tuition, room and board at one of America’s finest universities” Davis says jokingly. This assertion by Davis gives a laugh to the audience which brightens up the situation for readers. Although Seth Davis’ article in Sports Illustrated is rather short, it is extremely effective. Through his calm and soothing tone, emotional appeal, and his establishment of credibility, Davis effectively illustrates why Taylor Branch’s side is incorrect, and how student athletes are being compensated for their athletic abilities. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download