Children Need to Play, Not Compete - Critique

“Children Need to Play, Not Compete”, by Jessica Statsky: A Critique What makes Jessika Statsky’s “Children Need to Play, Not Compete” an effective piece in the arguments on whether the competitive sports may harm children both physically and psychologically, is her use of clear thesis statement and a full forecast of the reasons she offers to justify her position. Statsky carefully picks her key terms, such as by sports, for example, she means to describe both contact and non-contact sports that emphasize competition. Also she clearly defines to her audience that she is mainly concerned about children of age six to twelve years old.

In her article, Statsky shows clear logic supporting her thesis statement through use of believable and consistent argument, credible sources and appropriate counter-argument. While her logic is clear, her argument also has weaknesses. For instance, author fails to present a solid counter-argument showing rather positive effects of competitive sports on children. Failing to do so, Statsky fails to appeal to a much broader audience. Finally, the sources she uses to support her argument seem to be outdated, thus weakening the overall credibility of the article.

Despite that, Statsky provides a strong support for her thesis. She uses different kinds of information and sources. As well as she widely uses quotations, examples, and statistical data to support her point. Author often quotes and summarizes credible sources like “New York Times”, “Los Angeles Times”, official websites and other highly trustable resources in order to build a strong credibility for her argument as well as to support the reasons she believes competitive sports are bad for children. For example, in paragraph 3, Statsky offers the reason that “overly competitive sports” may harm children’s growing body by paraphrasing Koppett’s claim that muscle strain or more serious injury may result when a twelve-year-old throws curve balls. She then quotes Tutko on