Exercise 18 and 19: Brain injury awareness week (p. 46)
Introduction:
The increasing incident of brain accidents among young sports people, as well as a recent death, have called for an investigation into safety equipment. Two letter writers, Ms Humphry and Mr Costas, rely on personal experience as well as fear, to encourage a sports-minded audience to recognise that helmets are the best method of protection. In contrast, Mr O’Donaghue relies on his professional background as president of a football club as well as on doctors’ opinions to reassure parents and players that helmets are not the best solution. Rather, he seeks to allay fears, by pragmatically suggesting that education and care offer the best means of protection.
Write a paragraph based on the following analysis:
Note: Ms Sally Humphry: The basis of her argument is her real-life experience. Firstly explain the importance and significance of her real-life experience and then unpack/ analyse its implications for her message. The evidence includes: an appeal to safety; emotive language, depiction of coach; rhetorical question and assertive tone. Show how these techniques are related. What is the common purpose?
Ms Sally Humphry relies on her real-life experience as a parent to impress upon the football fraternity the necessity of wearing helmets as a safety precaution. The impact is twofold: she indirectly shames those such as the coach who appear to downplay the safety of young footballers. In addition, she exacts from concerned parents maximum sympathy for the plight of excluded youngsters.
- Personal experience: as a mother of a young boy, Ms Humphry refers to her own incident with the coach to imply that such reckless attitudes to safety make it difficult for young children to wear helmets. She censures the coach’s attitude towards the son — that he should “toughen up” and avoid “lame excuses” — which creates an atmosphere that is hostile to protective headgear. Such an apparently indifferent attitude is bound to antagonise many parents who are concerned for their children’s safety. (Note: if an author uses personal experience or anecdotal evidence, analyse its significance. How does she present herself or other people and why? What are the implications?)
- Her rhetorical question – ‘what’s wrong with kids … — reinforces the difficulty of maintaining her attitudes in such an atmosphere. (Note: If you are referring to the rhetorical question make sure you analyse its tone and/or implications: what is its significance? What does it imply? See p. 17.)
- Depiction of son: The use of emotive and colloquial terms such as “toughen up” and “shunned” portray children as vulnerable to scorn should they follow a coach’s typical advice that Ms Humphry believes downplays safety. Such attitudes create an atmosphere that is hostile to protective headgear and is bound to antagonise and alarm many parents who are concerned for their children’s safety. (Note: Always include a reference to the purpose and significance of such language.)
- Appeals: safety and fear. Ms Humphry plays upon parents’ fear for their children as she recognises that the players are susceptible to “knocks” to the brain. The purpose is to pressure parents to follow what she sees as the best solution. (Also see “sentence patterns”: p. 63.)
Likewise, Mr Costas refers to his personal experience as a “run of the mill” footballer who suffered a series of injuries to inform young footballers that wearing protective gear can minimise the severity of head injuries. The reference to his bruising past involving several incidents of concussions ensure that his audience does not downplay the risk of head injuries…
Text 3: Comparison between Mr O Donaghue and Ms Humphry…
(Start with some “linking” comments that compare points of view.)
Contrary to Mr Costas and Ms Humphry’ views about safety, Mr O Donaghue believes that protective headgear gives a false sense of security and may in fact hinder safety. If Ms Humphry uses her personal experience to prove that helmets are a necessary precaution, Mr O’Donaghue, as a coach, is intent on showing how she misrepresents the issue of safety; contrastingly, he seeks to justify the AFL’s stance. He refers to professional expertise as well as the real-life experience of Sam Hurley, a young footballer, to show that helmets often give a false sense of security and do not prevent injuries. In contrast to the views of some parents, the coach seeks to earn their trust and respect by proving that he cares about footballers and that the best solution is adequate recovery time. (Move to some specific comments about Mr O’Donaghue’s article) Specifically, Mr O’Donaghue also refers to medical advice to prove that he is knowledgeable about the risks and consequences of head injuries. He, too, prioritises safety but prefers to earn the reader’s support through notions of education . . .
- Return to Exercise 18-19, p. 53, Arguments and Persuasive Language
- Return to Summary Page: Arguments and Persuasive Language