Warren Hartenstine's Essay College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

When comparing two arguments, it is important to actively recognize the forms of rhetoric used in order to best understand the opposing viewpoints. Readers might think one rhetorical strategy is more effective than another. An effective use of rhetoric could benefit the author by persuading the reader to agree with the argument made. I evaluated two separate essays written on the relationship between economics and college sports. In Paul Marx’s essay, “Athlete’s New Day,” he argues the point that college athletes should be paid for their time and effort devoted to the sport. Warren Hartenstine opposes this proposition in his response essay, “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” Between these two writings, I believe that Hartenstine does a …show more content…
Hartenstine uses the advantage placed by order of essays presented, as he follows Marx’s opposing proclamation. The author uses a primarily Aristotelian form of rhetoric in his essay, mainly focusing on the topic of ethos, argumentatively the most important element of Aristotelian rhetoric. Ethos is defined as a writer’s credibility on a subject, scored by intelligence, character, and experience. Ethos can highly influence the effectiveness of an …show more content…
Hartenstine did have an advantage in his response essay by choosing to address the many misconceptions of college sports and education. Although I am not familiar with college sports, he makes clear logical appeals that almost any reader could understand. Not all writers need to be experts in the subjects they write about, but because Hartenstine declares his experience both on and off the field, he made use of the influential rhetorical element,