"Destroyed"
The article "Destroyed," by Peter F. Martin, portrays the effects of steroids and other performing enhancing drugs in an unbiased way. Martin goes back and forth, weighing the consequences of these drugs on the sport itself and its players. With a condescending attitude, mocking the sports analysts and fans, Martin humorously makes light of a dark situation. Comparing the old times when sports were "all natural,"to recent scandals of many athletes "cheating," but these drugs did not exist back then. He does mention that performance enhancers are a major threat to sports, while also discussing the risk to the athletes health, which not many people take into consideration. Martin's article opens up a third-eye point of view to the effect performance enhancing drugs have on sports, and the athletes who play them in an articulate and neutral aspect.
Paragraph #10
Performance enhancing drugs are a major risk in the sports world, on the game itself and the athletes who play it. They contradict the true idea of a "sport." Sports anchors and fans grieve over the fact that performance enhancers have ruined the game, but what about the players who risk their health for it? People ignore the fact that these drugs have great consequences on its users health.
Defining Moment
"Athletes - those who dope, who take steroids, who cheat - are victims of far more serious maladies then their sports,"(Martin 582). Martin's compare/contrast type style helps you look at both sides of this ongoing controversy, providing all the details of the situation and problem. The whole conclusion of this article is solid, summarizing the ongoing scandals of performance enhancing drugs in a way providing all aspects of the issue without being opinionated.
I completely argee with how you said that Martin wasn't opinionated and looked at both sides of the controversy. Also in your quote, you used the wrong kind of "than", but other than that I can agree with your post 100%!
ReplyDeleteI really like your explanation for the quote you chose and I agree completely. It's important for a writer to make sure they are addressing both sides of the issue, just like Martin did. Also, I think you did very well on your paraphrase- I always struggle with those! However, I disagree with the second sentence of your summary where you say. "Martin, portrays the effects of steroids and other performing enhancing drugs in an unbiased way." I found his piece of writing biased because he directly states his viewpoint by saying, "It is the players, much more than the games, that we must protect" (para. 9). In that quote he is directly saying that he thinks players need to be helped and protected, not the sport. While Martin did appeal to both sides of the issue by providing details for both perspectives, I believe the piece of writing leaned more towards his own personal opinion. Overall, I think you did a great job!
ReplyDeleteI like the quote you picked out. I agree with you on that. I really like the lenght of your paper and how you just jumo in with the assigment, nice work.
ReplyDeleteGood summary. The paraphrase, however, should include the parenthetical citation at the end of the paragraph that tells me this information still comes from an outside source and needs credit where credit is due. Therefore, be sure to include that in future assignments in which you paraphrase any evidence. I like your last part of this assignment, though. You have a great, thorough explanation of the quote you chose. I like this article because Martin explores both sides of the issue, which shows more than a compare/contrast style, but also strong argumentative skills, too. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteYou also need the works cited at the end of this!
Delete