David Langley effectively uses many different types of evidence to create an effective, cohesive argument in support of skateboarding. His most apparent and clearest type of evidence is personal experience. Being a skateboarder who was accosted by the police, Langley is in the unique position of being able to personally describe the abuses skateboarders are subjected to by police. His description of his near-arrest clearly shows how unfairly police treat skateboarders, supporting his claim. His next type of evidence is an interview where he asked policemen certain questions, showing again how policemen can bend obvious rules without being chastised by superiors. He also puts differing views in a subordinate position, pushing aside claims that skateboarding tears up the city and focusing on his own assertions that they in fact help clean it up. He uses his evidence clearly and succinctly to support his argument, making an effective claim that cities should more fairly treat their skateboarding citizens.
1 comment:
I disagree that he made an effective argument. Although using his personal experience with a police officer showed the audience why he has his opinions clearly, it is the only valuble piece of information to his pseudo-argument. The entire thing is written on assumptions that not everyone will share. He says things like "Most adults probably don't think skateboarders deserve to be treated fairly." This is absolutely not true; they're probably just worried about safety. He writes as though there is nothing that the skateboarder has nothing he could do to be a more courteous athlete, and that the only people who have anything to change are the cities and police officeres.
I agree with what he was trying to say in his argument, but he failed to convey it in an effective manner.
Post a Comment