Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, identifying any fallacious reasoning or exaggerated or distorted evidence.
A few days ago news came out that last season’s MVP of the
national league in baseball, Ryan Braun tested positive for HGH (human growth
hormone.) Apparently he tested positive for these substances during the
baseball playoffs. According to the test Braun's level of synthetic HGH was
higher than any other test. Braun's statement is that he did not take any HGH
substances but the chips seemed to be stacked against him. In the editorial it
shows both views of the story. But it shows one view as their view. In their
view they claim "But if the Milwaukee Brewers slugger cannot reverse the
ruling that currently stands, he should be stripped of this honor." I cannot
agree more with this statement they go on to make an example of why if Braun is
convicted of this he should have his MVP award striped "This should be a
no-brainer, just as in the Olympics, where any medal winner who fails a drug
test is immediately disqualified." This is yet another fantastic point.
They also say that if he proves them wrong than he more than deserves to keep
his award. They go on to give reasoning to why even if he is convicted that he
should keep his award. They say "Even if the original ruling stands,
there's no way of knowing how any improper substance affected Braun's play."
This is a valiant point but is strongly disagree with it. In my opinion if
Braun is proven that he cheated then he should immediately be stripped of his
MVP award.
No comments:
Post a Comment