Heffernan's Arguments 'Participation Trophies'
Many children that compete in youth sports receive trophies for their participation. The question is, are these trophies leaving a positive or a negative impact towards children. Supporting participation trophies, Lisa Heffernan states that it does teach children good values with her argument titled “In Defense of Participation Trophies”. Opposing participation trophies, Vivian Diller states that it does not prepare children for the real world with her argument titled “Do We All Deserve Gold? Setting Kids up to Fail”.
Heffernan’s argument supports participation trophies by focusing on her own personal experiences with the issue. While she does reference research by Kenneth Barish, Tom Farrey, and Allison Slater Tate that does support her argument, but she put a large focus towards her own experience. She calls that participation awards her children received at a young age “adequate rewards for practicing”. She states with her argument that the reason that we keep these trophies is that they teach children the lessons of participation and growth. The use of her own experience and explaining the lessons of participation …show more content…
Heffernan’s argument focused primarily on personal experience and outside sources or data that supported her claims were repetitive and failed to expand her claims. Diller’s argument had both the personal experiences and evidence from others as well. Diller’s argument was focused on her main point and did not add information that weakened her claim. The primary weakness in Heffernan’s argument was that many points including her opening being more appropriate for argument against participation trophies. Both arguments were well made and helped solidify their points, Diller’s argument appealed towards logos and focused points allowed it to create and stronger argument compared to Heffernan’s
Heffernan’s argument supports participation trophies by focusing on her own personal experiences with the issue. While she does reference research by Kenneth Barish, Tom Farrey, and Allison Slater Tate that does support her argument, but she put a large focus towards her own experience. She calls that participation awards her children received at a young age “adequate rewards for practicing”. She states with her argument that the reason that we keep these trophies is that they teach children the lessons of participation and growth. The use of her own experience and explaining the lessons of participation …show more content…
Heffernan’s argument focused primarily on personal experience and outside sources or data that supported her claims were repetitive and failed to expand her claims. Diller’s argument had both the personal experiences and evidence from others as well. Diller’s argument was focused on her main point and did not add information that weakened her claim. The primary weakness in Heffernan’s argument was that many points including her opening being more appropriate for argument against participation trophies. Both arguments were well made and helped solidify their points, Diller’s argument appealed towards logos and focused points allowed it to create and stronger argument compared to Heffernan’s