Austin Nevitt

Ms. Mullins

RW4theCB

RA Essay- Ind.

1 November 2016

Why Not Football?

A common issue in todays world is whether or not kids should be allowed play football.

In Dont Let Kids Play Football by Bennet Omalu, Omalu argues that we should not let

children play tackle football because they are not fully developed and can be permanently

damaged. Omalu is able to effectively utilize rhetorical strategies to fully develop his argument

and persuade the reader.

Omalu included various statistics and analysis from research to help produce his

argument. Using logos allows him to prove to the reader that he has data to prove his point and

he isnt just making an argument out of nothing. Omalu says that there can be evidence of brain

damage at the cellular level and that these cellular injuries accumulate to cause irreversible

brain damage. He is introducing the reader to the idea that research has been done to find this

evidence of brain damage. He is able to logically connect this to kids playing throughout their

childhood accumulating brain damage. The common person hasnt done research on effects of

football on the human brain, so Omalu is showing that there is physical evidence to back up his

claims. Later in the article, Omalu mentions, The human brain becomes fully developed at

about 18 to 25 years old. This connects the idea of brain damage from football to the fact that

the kids receiving the damage do not have fully developed brains yet. This piece of information
proves to the reader that the harm that comes from football is even more detrimental to children.

This again allows the reader to see that actual data shows the damage football causes. Through

using data from research, Omalu proves to the reader that his claim is logical.

Omalu uses personal and trustworthy claims to establish credibility within his argument.

He mentions that he first diagnosed a patient with [Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy] in

2002. This is showing the reader that he has knowledge on the topic of brain damage. The

reader knows that he can be trusted because he is implying that he is some sort of doctor. Once

Omalu establishes that he is credible, he tells the reader, In more than 30 years of looking at

normal brain cells in the microscope, I have yet to see a neuron that naturally creates a new

neuron to regenerate itself. He is telling the reader of his experience in the field and proves why

they can trust him and his argument. This also shows how brain damage can be permanent, and

to a reader that is not specialized in knowledge of the brain, his ideas are credible. When the

reader sees the author as a credible source of knowledge, they are more likely to trust his claims.

By relating his personal expertise to his argument, Omalu makes his argument more valid and

trusted.

Omalu also fully utilizes fallacies of logic to convince his readers to agree with his

argument. The fallacy equivocation is comparing unlike ideas to prove a point. At the end of

his argument, Omalu claims that a minimum legal age is in place for drinking alcohol; for

joining the military; for voting; for smoking; for driving; and for consenting. He uses this to

show that we should do the same for playing football and protecting the organ that defines who

we are. This is comparing completely different topics to the brain damage of football. While

this is a fault in logic, it does effectively develop his argument. The reader can relate to some of
the other issues on a personal level, and can then understand why Omalu wants to keep young

children from playing tackle football. If we have regulations in place for some of these other

issues, the reader understands where the argument is coming from and can make sense of the

claim. Another logical fallacy is card-stacking. This is when only one side of the issue is

presented. Omalu never mentions the positives of football, such as leadership skills, fitness, and

teamwork that children can get from playing the sport. He focuses solely on the negative effects

of playing. By completely leaving one side out, the reader focuses all of their attention on

damage football does. He doesnt address a counter argument, so there is nothing for the reader

to fall back on except for Omalus argument. By using these fallacies, Omalu is able to avoid

holes in his argument and convince the reader by dancing around the truth.

Throughout the article, Omalu uses various rhetorical devices to complete his argument

in a convincing fashion. He logically showed the reader why his claims were strong. He used his

credibility to establish trust from the reader. He used some holes in logic to be more convincing.

When Omalu put this all together, he created an effective argument to prove his point. Childhood

football is an issue at the forefront of todays society, and the article by Omalu is able to show

people why he believes his side of the debate should be taken into account.