Brain Injury Awareness Week
What does the author say (and how): (does he defend or criticise; condemn or support? a scheme or policy?)
- On what grounds? Upon what evidence does the author base his/her viewpoint? (What points does he make?)
- Which argument strategies underpin these views?
- Ie What does he do with the evidence? How does he use the evidence (to sharpen the attack, or to defend/justify/rationalise something)
Argument strategies (p. 53.) Exercise 19
Ms Humphry relies on her parental experience to endorse protective headgear. She encourages us to recognise that this is the best method of safety. She uses her parental experience to criticise and shame the coach’s attitudes to her son.
As a country footballer and as a parent, Mr Costas endorses mandatory use of helmets. (best method of safety/protection).
Both Mr Costas and Ms Humphry endorse helmets. Both rely on their personal and parental experiences to recommend safety precautions and instil a sense of fear in unsuspecting parents/players who do not wear helmets.
Mr O Donaghue disapproves of mandatory headgear and defends the AFL’s policy. He condemns those who insist on helmets. He refers to both the doctor’s advice and Sam Hurley’s personal experience to suggest that headgear leads to a false sense of security. Specifically, Dr Reid encourages parents and officials to realise that concussions can still occur even with a helmet. This accords with Sam Hurley’s own experience as he was concussed while wearing headgear. If Mr Costas seeks to increase fear and concern, Mr O D seeks to allay concerns about the lack of protection / reassure all players that the AFL policies are not misplaced.
Compare and contrast sentence practice
- Sam Hurley’s experience differs from Mr Costas’. Sam Hurley sustained concussion while wearing helmets. This is contrary to Mr Costas’s experience.
- If Ms Humphry advocates head protective gear, Mr O Donaghue believes that such equipment gives the players a false sense of security.
- Like Mr Costas, Ms Humphry also advocates the use of helmets. If he relies on his own experience as a country footballer, she refers to her parental experience with her son and with his coach.
- Like Ms Humphry, Mr Costas uses his own personal /.parental experience to unsettle unsuspecting parents about the consequences of a failure to wear headgear … (injuries)
- Contrastingly, Mr O Donaghue believes that, unlike Mr Costas, helmets can lead to more, not fewer, bouts of concussions.
- Contradicting Ms Humphry, Mr O Donaghue suggests that headgear can lead to more, not fewer, injuries.
- If Ms H seeks to compound our fears, Mr D contrastingly, seeks to allay any concerns about the lack of headgear.
- In contrast to S Humphry, T O D believes that head gives a false sense of security…
- If Mr Costas refers to his doctor’s advice to defend the use of helmets, Mr O d , contrastingly, relies on Dr Reid’s support for the AFL’s policy.
If the President defends the AFL policy, Ms Humphry is censorious of a policy that does not appear to place enough emphasis on the safety of young children. Specifically, she relies on her parental experience to recommend the use of helmets on safety grounds. Her son’s experiences on the football ground enable her to more sharply criticise the coach (shame/marginalises him). She draws attention to the problems of the “developing brains” that are “vulnerable” and suggests that sensible parents should take maximum precautions. The fact that her son was “shunned” and therefore stigmatised she believes is a poor indictment on the football code.
Similarly, Mr Costas also recommends the compulsory use of helmets, and believes it is the best protection of a young adult’s health. If Ms Humphry relies on her parental experience, Mr Costas refers to his own playing experience as a “country footballer” and his numerous and alarming bouts of concussion. Significantly, his advice from his doctor varies considerably from Dr Reid’s in the President’s article which seems to reflect his criticism of the AFL’s medical evidence as self-serving and not focussed enough on the player. In this regard, Mr Costas his personal injuries leave his audience in no doubt about the severity of