Arthur Caplan's Argument Essay

For many people, gaining a competitive edge is crucial in one 's success, even if it comes at a cost. In modern professional and amateur sports, the introduction of performance enhancing drugs has dramatically changed the nature of the game. Arthur Caplan, author of A Shot in the Rear: Why Are We Really against Steroids?, presented argumentative reasons from both supporters and objectors of steroid use. While Caplan attempted to use persuasive appeals, the lack of sources used combined with a poor structure severely weakened his argument. In order to enhance his argument, Caplan used persuasive appeals, such as logos and ethos. Found throughout his essay, logos appeals were used to support his reasoning. For instance, he used logical appeals

Instead of grouping both sides of the argument in separate sections, Caplan attempted to format the essay like a conversation, or an informal argument. He introduced the issue, explained one side of the argument, gave information around athlete steroid scandals, provided the other side of the argument, included a rebuttal to the other side, and then concluded. Instead of creating an effective and unique format, the argument appears cluttered with ideas, reasons and rebuttals. For the audience, a clear format is key to the success of the argument as the readers must be able to comprehend the main points with ease. If one is not able to understand the argument, the credibility of the argument is compromised as the reader may not trust the argument if the author fails to make the information clear. Another weak point of the argument is the lack of total sources used. It is understandable that an argument in the form of a research paper is not effective, but more sources are needed to better qualify his claims. Including himself, Caplan used only three credible sources throughout the essay that provided one source supporting steroid usage, and one source against it. The information found in paragraphs seven through thirteen do not add to the total source count, as there is no mention of where the information was