The articles, Let Kids Play Safely/Protect Kids from Harm are alike, yet different. While they both talk about football, and what someone could do to make it safer, they present it in different ways, and also include other arguments. First of all, Let Kids Play Safely and Protect Kids from Harm are alike because both articles explain how football could be made safer so that accidents would not occur as often. The two articles explain that neither of them are particularly against football, but explain that safety measures need to be taken to prevent injuries like concussions.
Let Kids Play Safely is different from the article, Protect Kids from Harm because it explains that football should not be banned, for anyone. I agree with this because football should not be banned for anyone when simple safety measures could be taken. I know that the article supports this because the text states, “Some have even… to do away with this risk.” And then the article says, “Children should not be… can be put into place.” The
…show more content…
I do not agree with this because besides football, there are other sports that are dangerous and it wouldn’t be fair to take football away. I know that the article wants to ban football because the article says, “Football for children under the age of 14 should be banned.” Unlike the other article, which called this idea an extreme view of the situation and an idea that would not serve the children well. This article also disagrees that children should change the way their heads are facing when tackling, to prevent injuries, which I disagree with because this could prevent many injuries, without having to take a whole sport away for children under the age of 14. I know that the article argues with this because the text says, “Players in flag football programs are not taught… be a horrible