In my previous two posts, I talked about arguments from both sides of the question, is gymnastics a sport? Some examples that were given used the same rhetorical strategy just in different ways. Nathan Palcowski had explained, in an article, that the judging in gymnastics is unfair because there are no set rules and the judges can mark you down for just disliking you in general. On the other side, the ESPN video with John Brenkus had explained just how hard gymnastics really is by describing a skill and calculating the mechanics behind it. Both of these writers used the rhetorical strategy, exemplification to appeal to our reasoning or in other words, logos.
Nathan Palcowski gives examples about a certain part of gymnastics, the judging. Nathan is talking to the readers of the article and attempting to explain how gymnastics is not a sport. However, when he talks about it, everything he says is an opinion. He is just one person looking into the sport and deciding that the judging system is unfair. In his article, he does not give any evidence or cite any sources of where he could have received this information from. This is just what he thinks. What makes him correct? Why should we believe what one man is saying? Also, the part of gymnastics that he decided to talk about doesn’t even involve doing the actual sport. He is describing how the judging is bad but what about the actual performance and skills?
In the ESPN video, addressing all viewers, John Brenkus gives explains a specific skill on the balance beam, a back layout step out. However, since this is a visual presentation, he allows the audience to see exactly what he is talking about. He also uses mathematics to calculate the degrees and angles of the gymnast’s body and the speed at which she is flipping. This puts into perspective just how fast and how far and gymnast is traveling on a four inch piece of wood. The video also explains how fast gymnasts runs to the vault table, how high in the air she gets, and how strong her arms actually need to be in order to hold onto the uneven bars. There is a lot of proven facts and information for the audience to listen to as well as see visually.
The method of using facts, pictures, and resources was a more effective way to use exemplification. John Brenkus was more believable and trustworthy. Listening to an opinion of someone, Nathan Palcowski, who is just an outside source that may not even be relevant to the sport at all was not very convincing. As an audience member of both arguments, the video was definitely a better way to go.