High school sports are valued around the United States. They can be a big part of school spirit, and may even affect the school you choose to go to. Two articles: one from The Atlantic, and one from The Huffington Post have conflicting opinions on the subject of high school sports. The article against sports by Amanda Ripley, was written to persuade US citizens that sports should be limited or fully removed from high schools. The article in support of sports by Kai Sato was written in response to the negative article, intended to critique that author in specific. Amanda Ripley’s tone was judgemental. By contrast, Sato’s article had a factual tone, that included stories of her own that proved his points well. Because of this, Sato’s article is more successful in persuading …show more content…
Though Ripley uses ethos in her piece, it was not as effective or as thorough as Sato’s article it states: “But like, Jenny, the Korean girl featured in the article, I’m of Asian descent and even attended school in my father’s native Japan as a youth, where academics are an obsession...I’m thankful that I was challenged in ways beyond parabolas and factorials.” He combats statements by using his personal experiences. In Ripley’s article it says: “Like most other Americans, I can rattle off the many benefits of high-school sports: exercise, lessons in sportsmanship and perseverance, school spirit, and just plain fun… But as I’ve travelled around the world visiting places that do things differently - and get better results - I’ve started to wonder about the trade-offs we make.” Her quote seems like an attempt to include ethos, but it does not fully accomplish it. Sato chooses to include ethos because it is believable to viewers. Ripley tried to incorporate this, but it is not effective. In this situation, Sato’s use of ethos fulfills its purpose because it provides a valuable personal experience to back up her