Student Name
Professor Serwin
English 103
8 September 2005
Response #2
Mistreated Urban Athletes: Skateboarders
“Half-Criminals or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders,” an essay written by student David Langley, describes the mistreatment of skateboarders in the urban cities. This ongoing injustice is nugatory to most readers, but the stories and instances, engrained in the essay itself, makes the injustices come alive as we see the problem through the eyes of a skateboarder. Very good intro and thesis
The essay contains the components of the Toulmin System to utilize examples of logical arguments while incorporating personal beliefs. A brief personal anecdote, about a time when Langley is treated unfairly while skateboarding, is given to catch the attention of the issue at hand. Langley then offers his claim, “Cities need to change their unfair treatment of skateboarders,” (127) and three stated reasons, “because skateboarders are not antisocial misfits as popularly believed, because the laws regulating skateboarding are ambiguous, and because skateboarders are not given enough legitimate space to practice their sport,” (127) to emphasize a seemingly nonexistent issue that is, in reality, a tangible issue to all those involved. Using the grounds, warrant, backing, and conditions of rebuttal, he further strengthens his argument that builds upon the Toulmin system. The grounds of the stated reasons are stemmed from personal encounters of situations, which embody the mistreatment of skateboarders. Explaining that skateboarding is natural to cement, Langley waters down the delinquent image of skateboarders by comparing it to the analogies surfboards are to water and skis to snow. An example of ambiguous law refers to the anecdote in the beginning, where Langley is “frisked on the UCSD campus” (127) because of a difference that exists on how each party, the police officers and skateboarders, define reckless. The city has tried to “treat skateboarders fairly… [by] building skateboard parks” (127), but the skateboard parks are often crowded and dangerous, and the skateboarders have nowhere to go. The misunderstanding and ignorance leads to the miscommunication, confusion, and isolation between citizens, officers and skateboarders. If these concerns were properly addressed, there would be less stereotyping of skateboarders, the tension between the police and skateboarders would disappear. Langley also addresses the rebuttal that many adults believe skateboarders “tear up public and private property” (128). He acknowledges this as fact, but also diverges that skateboarders also keep the environment clean because, unlike car drivers, they do not litter because any small object can lead to a painful accident and they keep the “air a lot cleaner” (128). Though the base of Langley’s essay is built upon his own experience, an illogical choice for a rhetoric, his essay retains lucidity and rationale due to his meticulous reasoning, common sense knowledge, and the lack of fallacious statements. Good analytical response to his prose style
The amount of evidence that Langley uses is sufficient and typical. The events that he described seem like situations every skateboarder would run in to. Concerning the accuracy of his evidence, one must notice that all his examples were derived from personal experiences. Though personal experience is a viable source of evidence, there is a doubt about how accurate and recent these events took place. Because most of the evidence was from a personal source, there were no reliable sources that he referred to, which the audience could trust. Therefore, it might be assumed that these events were biased. However, the bias prompts the reader to take action because the experiences seem believable and are relevant to the issue of skateboarders being treated unfairly. Use of the evidence that Langley provided were all helpful in providing that “angle of vision” from a skateboarder’s point of view. Very good analysis
Langley appealed to the audience’s emotions through the use of his evidence and choice of words. Evidence used by Langley were mainly narratives, beginning with his opening statement with his encounter with the police officer who “treated …[him] like a criminal” (126) to skateboarders having to “take deep breath [of ]….toxins”(128) in order to do what they love. These narratives all create a sense of isolation and give a glimpse of what it feels like to be an outcast. Everywhere that skateboarders go, they are treated as criminals, even though they have done nothing wrong. In addition, they have no safe place to skate, anytime they want. This feeling of seclusion is consistent throughout his essay, and every story he tells is clear to make reference that skateboarders are helpless. The attitude Langley conveys about his subject seems very reasonable and objective, but the bias he creates throughout the rest of his essay forms a deeper emotional link between his audience, setting a gloomy mood, as opposed to if he had written it in a very satirical way. Explaining this issue, Langley is very succinct in getting his point across by supporting his claims with various reasons, which make his narrative more realistic and believable, and is very effective in creating compassion to these skateboarders. It makes one feel sympathetic to the skateboarders, seeing all that they face, just to enjoy a sport. Langley also uses words such as “forced”, “bombarded”, “grabbed”, “yanked”, and “kicked out” to describe the handling of skateboarders by police officers. Overall, with his narratives and strong verb choices, he is very effective in appealing to the logic and emotion of his audience.
Works Cited center this
Langley, David. “Half-Criminals” or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment of
Skateboarders.” Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. John Ramage et al.
New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 126-128.
Very well done. Excellent analysis. Score: 5 = 100% = A