source 2

This article breaks down the side of the debate of for paying college players into seven big points. The seven big points range from the massive size of the business of college athletics, how to pay athletes, or to how dumb or unreasonable any counterarguments to not paying athletes is. The main evidence is numbers, humor, and just plain appealing to the logos of the audience. Its main focus is to persuade the audience into being a for paying college athletes mindset due to how the article sets up a “overwhelming amount of points” it seems.

This article was very aggressive in that it regards the critics in saying that change is going to ruin the game. The use of humor in the home alone picture or bomb explosion shows the “over reaction” that critics have. It is less formal than my other newspaper article due to this being a online magazine. It has a lot of informal language in that it does not seem like an article but rather a paper a person would use in a informal debate with someone. The painting of critics just being plain dumb or ignorant is the main takeaway from this reading. The article does not seem to have the same oversight as my other article due to this.

“And so, for example, if your kid is the star of Home Alone, and they say 'Look, we are just going to pay for expenses. And if they do a really good job, maybe when they're older and they become an adult they can get paid then.' You would say, “No, no—this is not the school play. This is a multi-billion dollar business. Billions of dollars are being made and my kid is the star of the show. That’s not right. This is a commercial enterprise. (6).” This line from the article generalizes the language of the overall article, it’s very appealing to a common reader and plays on a bit of humor. This quote gets across a point in using an example that would be easy to envision for a audience. 

Peebles, Maurice. "7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be Paid (According to Jay Bilas)." Complex. N.p., 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 5 Sept. 2016.