In the article “Male College students believe taking performance-enhancing Drugs for sports is more unethical than using stimulants to Improve grades, according to new study,” author Audrey Hamilton argues that male college students believe that it is more of a necessity to use prescription drugs for success than using steroids. In this short rebuttal it will attempt to analyze the reliability, credibility, and the validity of the data. This will also identify any logical fallacies in the argument. In the first paragraph of the article the author states, “In the eyes of young college men, it’s more unethical to use steroids to get an edge in sports than it is to use prescription stimulants to enhance ones grades.” The article also states further down in the article that this is the first study of its kind. The first statement in itself would seem to me that the author who is a female is taking a stance that young college men are under the same beliefs. This is a fallacy of rationalizing, how is she to believe that all young college men have the same belief. They all come from different backgrounds, and have different goals in college and life. With this being the first study of its kind the readers have no outside sources to relate the author’s opinion. The author’s argument is unreliable as she has only one source and that source is the first study of its kind and the participants in the study were 1,200 college freshmen (73 % White) as stated in the article. This leaves out many controversial issues that may arise. The only validity of the argument is within the study, where young college men were part of the study. In conclusion, I oppose the author’s arguments. I believe that if more studies were done whit a wider variety of participants from multiple backgrounds, they would find that there would be a more even thinking as for the ethical thinking of...