Written by Zev Chafets
Q. What is the writer’s general subject?
A. The general subject in this essay is the epidemic of steroid
use in the baseball hall of fame and how, whether the public likes it or not, “chemical
enhancement is here to stay.” (22 Chafets)
Q. What is the writer’s main point?
A.That ultimately steroids are inevitably going to be used by athletes,
especially in baseball, and even substances like
steroids are already being used by the youth.
Q. What are the writer’s key supporting points?
A. “Purists say that steroids alter the game. But since the Hall
opened its doors, baseball has never stopped changing”. (22, Kirszner ~ Mandell)
One of the key points Chafets makes in his essay (above) is that
the game of baseball was always bound to change; it was never supposed to stay
constant, but be altered by things such as more protective uniforms, its
demography, the time of day the game is played at, and now, the use of
steroids.
“On any given day, the stands are packed with youngsters on
Adderall and Ritalin (stimulants used for attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder) and college students who use Provigil (an anti-narcolepsy drug) as a
study aid”. (22, Kirszner ~ Mandell)
The point given here by Chafets is that the adult baseball players
are not the only ones using drugs to enhance their performance.
Q. Does the writer seem to have a particular purpose in mind?
A. The purpose is to brace the public that enhancements like these
are going to be used regardless of their acceptance. It’s better to just get
used to them.
Q. What kind of audience is the writer addressing?
A. He seems to be addressing the general public, but probably more
in particular, the people who are skeptical or outraged by steroids use in the
Baseball Hall of Fame.
Q. What are the writer’s assumptions about the audience? About
subject?
A. The writer is assuming that the reader is against steroids, and
therefore is writing to them on how it is unavoidable and they should just
accept it. About his subject, Chafets seems to be somewhat ignorant to the
harmful effects steroids can have on a person, (examples such as depression,
liver damage, and cancer,) but is writing in a way that assumes steroids are harmless.
Q. Are the writer’s ideas consistent to your own?
A. Not really, the author has a very narrow approach to steroids.
Q. Does the writer reveal any biases?
A. The author is partial to steroids, and doesn’t agree with the
public who are against them.
Q. Do you have any knowledge that challenges the writer’s ideas?
A. The author is not taking into account the serious and destructive
effects steroids can have. Though Chafets says, “But baseball players aren’t children;
they are adults in a very stressful and competitive profession. If they want to
use anabolic steroids, or human growth hormone or bull’s testosterone, it
should be up to them”, (22, Kirszner ~ Mandell) simply because they’re adults doesn’t
mean they should make stupid decisions, such as taking steroids.
Q. Is there any information missing?
A. There isn’t much of a counter argument, or a more realistic
view of what steroids can do.
Q. Sequential or logical links missing?
A. None that could be found.
Q. Can you identify themes or ideas that also appear in other
works your have read?
Not many that could be compared to the essay.
Q. Can you identify parallels with your own experience?
A. There are several situations from our experiences that can be
compared. For example, the use of other drugs (like marijuana) will be used
whether it’s legal or not, similar to Chafets argument on steroids.
WORKS CITED
Kirszner, Laurie G, and Stephen R. Mandell. Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Boston: Bedford St. Martin's, 2001. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment