An article, where I went in expecting little from, has left an impression on me. I did not know how informative the article would be as I clicked on it, and as I began reading the first-person-written text. Why did I click on it? I was intrigued by another topic, initially. However, I decided I’d choose the article, ” ‘Why I’m Behind the Athletes’ Bill of Rights’ ” from Sports Illustrated. I don’t watch sports on a regular, I enjoy watching soccer matches, but definitely, I prioritize other thing before sports. However, I was drawn to this sports-related article because I was curious to see how much I could learn. I had never heard of the Athletes’ Bill of Rights. “What kind of article will this be?,” I asked myself. The subtle use of pathos really got me. Mix that in with the logical mentions to studies and their significance, the article sold. Cory Booker, the author of the article, is a Senator working to change something that’s been going on for way to long: college athletes’ exploitation. I was so extremely upset when I read about a college athlete that helped his team win, at the expense of his own health. He would go to bed hungry because he couldn’t afford a meal! Those in the power to take action and help their athletes have not taken action- in decades. Therefore, the author’s purpose is to garner attention and support to help the athletes, as a former athlete himself, now that he has the power to do so.

Senator Booker referenced NCAA’s own statistics. I understood from context that the NCAA was responsible of the college athletes, although the acronym was not explained, assuming the reader is familiar with the NCAA. I would say that the explanation of NCAA and it’s specific role is something notably absent in the article, however it does not take away from the statement the author is making, considering who his target audience is.  Apart from these details, Senator Booker’s article surpasses my expectations, for it was simple, straightforward, and appeals to both your logic and emotions.

This sports-genre article seemed to work pretty well. I think this because of something Dirk cited in his essay, “In sum, “too much choice is as debilitating of meaning as is too little choice. In language, too much variation results eventually in lack of meaning: mutual unintelligibility” (Devitt, “Genre” 53).” What this means to me is that the further you try to deviate from your genre, the less understandable your writing will be, and in effect, it will also be less appealing. Booker’s article is, on the contrary, focused on its thesis and maintains its focus all throughout the article.