1001AK 14b Should doping be allowed in professional sports? by Matt Fung https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n Read, analyze and evaluate the article. Type the points that you think will be useful for your critical response. These points will be used for a verbal practice later. en-us 2021-04-12 07:17:21 UTC 2025-11-22 11:53:07 UTC hello@padlet.com Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415080301 In paragraph 11, the writer said ' If cigarettes and drinking are legal, why not doping in sports? '. However, cigarettes and drinking are for entertainment but doping are not. They are actually not similar and cannot be compared in such method. It is a false analogy.

The writer, in the whole article, neglects the harm doping do to athletes' health. And it may be the very reason why people boycott doping in sports.

In paragraph 8, the writer assumes that making doping illegal can finally destroy athletes' lives. It is a slippery slope. In actual fact, if doping is not allowed for every athletes, it is fair for every athlete to compete in a game.]]> 2021-04-14 05:38:29 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415080301 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415080784 1. In para 2, the reason of supporting doping is the increasing popularity of the usage.
2. In para 3, the author has assumed that the components are legal substances. However, the example of energy drinks and supplements are not suitable as they cause no harm to human beings, but doping is not the case.
3. In para 5, the author split black and white according to their genetics, but there is no evidence, or any statistics.
4. There exists appeal to emotion by saying that banning dope will destroy the life of the athletes that sports and race is the entire life.]]> 2021-04-14 05:38:45 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415080784 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415082462 First, the article clearly shows a hasty generalization. The writer simply  put doping as the reason for "many cyclists improve their performance and are breaking old records with each race." with out thinking there could much more other reasons for the excellent performance of some athletes, like their hard-work.

Second, there is not enough data to support the writer's stance. For example, as the writer mentioned in paragraph 2, "  idea of legalizing them is becoming increasingly popular due to more and more athletes getting penalized for using them. ". It is just the assumption of the writer which do not have any statistics to support. 

Third,  there is a hidden assumption that all athletes will take drugs if doping is legal ( "In the end, these athletes are still humans competing with humans.") However, it may not be the case and even if there is just one person refuse to take drugs to enhance the performance, the situation is still unfair. 

Moreover, the article also shows false analogy. The writer try to compare train and dope in paragraph 4 and suggest that they are the same thing. However, they are in fact totally different. Train and exercise are based the hard work of the athletes while dope is just using drugs to enhance the ability of athletes which they cannot do so before.
   ]]> 2021-04-14 05:39:43 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415082462 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415082713 1. The writer established a weak analogy in para.4 which he/she described the differences in training,funding, equipment, coaches to supplements. However, the flaws of the analogy are clearly shown. Usually, athletes have different training programme tailored for each individual, it is hard to say if one is better than  the other, same thing goes with coaches. For supplements , there are scientific prove and evidence that one can be more effective than the other. Besides, supplements  often are secretly produced, and are protected by patents whereas training programs are publicly known. Some even share their training programs on the Web.
2. Some logical errors can be found in the last paragraph, the writer persuades the use of drugs for more home runs in a baseball  game. Considering both the pitcher and batter dose beforehand. The number of home run may not be increased as the performance of both players are boosted, hence the pitcher pitch faster then more strikes.
3. The problem of self-contradictory can also be seen. He/she thinks that professional sports is about one’s will power and perseverance but not ability in para.6. In para.5, he/she says it si unfair that genetics create difference  in  abilities. According to his/her opinion on sports, genetic should not br problem then, it is all about willpower and perseverance.]]> 2021-04-14 05:39:51 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415082713 not convincing 2735274664 https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415083867 There are several places I found  might be not valid.
1. first of all, in para3, the writer states that doping is just like using energy drinks and supplements as long as their components are legal substances. This argument is not evidence-based,  there is no study suggesting using drugs is not harmful to athletes' health.
2. besides, in para 4, the writer claims that "sports are all about trying to become strongest, fastest and basically the best human being". Here, an important information is omitted  that the essential purpose of sports is to motivate people to exercise more and stay healthy, which means we can't do something at the expense of health just in order to get a better performance. this absolutely violates the sport spirit.
3. What's more, in para5, the writer clearly shows a rival causes fallacy. here the writer states that it's unfair the certain people become better athletes just because their genes.  The evidences ignore the difference of training condition and method between different countries, and these things can also lead to different performance in the end. Besides, the solution put forward here is not reasonable at all, first, how do you evaluate the effect of drugs to make sure that it can accurately erase the imbalance of genes, and the solution itself that allowing a certain group of people to dope while not allowing others is unfair, which will lead to new problems regrading to equity.
4. Third, in the last para, the writer is committing a false analogy by comparing doping with cigarettes and drinking. They are totally different in essence that cigarettes and drinking are not concerned with performance enhancing and any competition at all. But doping is a kind of cheating in sport.]]> 2021-04-14 05:40:31 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415083867 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415087683 In paragraph 4, the writer tries the persuade that sports are about to win and being the strongest; however, it may not be  the truth that sports involve various of value like sportsmanship, Olympic spirit,etc. 

The writer also tries to persuade that supplement or enhancer is safer than steroid but fails to provide solid proof and evidence, which makes the argument less convincing.

Paradoxically, the writers mentioned than professional sports is not about testing athletes' abilities but their willpower, which is contradictory to his argument that using drugs to enhance athletes' performance in the purpose of winning the competition by diminishing the difference in genetics.]]> 2021-04-14 05:42:31 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415087683 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415089159 1. In paragraph 5, stating the main component of ability in sport is genetic. However, there may be some other reason about the ability of sport like  handwork or better training. There are some alternative causes of ability in sport. 
2. In paragraph 5, "making inferior genetic code make the competition fair" is rival cause. What means fair? making inferior genetic is probably an unfair thing. 
3. There is ommition of information like other method for having better performance in competition and the disadvantage of using doping in sports. 
4. Poor analogy is in paragraph 11. Cigarette and drinking are legal while doping is not allowed in sports. These two is completely different because legalisation of cigarette and drinking in any place is a general statement. Doping in sport is a more specific statement. This two are in different situation.]]> 2021-04-14 05:43:11 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415089159 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415095353 1. The writer states that "if everyone does it, it won't be unfair." Bandwagon appeal is committed as the writer argues with a weak conclusion that you should do it because a lot of people do it, which is not a logical reasoning.
2. Not sequitur is also committed. The writer concludes paragraph 7 with "doping is something that has always and will always exist, so it's time for it to be accepted", which is again not logical because this statement doesn't follow from the previous one and cannot strengthen his stance that doping should be allowed in professional sports.
3. False analogy is committed in the last paragraph. The writer points out that "if cigarettes and drinking are legal, why not doping in sports?". The writer try to use the case of cigarettes and drinking to convince the readers that doping should also be legalised, but these three things cannot be compared as they are not actually similar.]]> 2021-04-14 05:46:01 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415095353 not convincing 1155159059 https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415096745 First, the writer make some unproved assumption. For example, in para5, he mentioned that black people do better in racing events while white people are strong in swimming events. Yet it doesn't make sense to draw conclusion of how well a person play sports based on his/her genetic code.

Second, the explanation maybe slippery slope. For example, the writer mentioned that " as long as records continue to be broken, the fans will be happy and sports will be more fun." However, it doesn't make sense in fact and the result seems to be over elaborated.

Third, the argument maybe too subjective as the source are omitted.

]]> 2021-04-14 05:46:41 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415096745 Not convincing 1155157504 https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415122945 First, the writer wrongly compare the performance enhancing drugs to energy drinks and supplements, they have different extent of improving the performance, and those drugs are more difficult to obtain.
The writer explain that it is not unfair if everyone dopes, but he thinks that some athletes get better training and it causes inequality. Yet, he omits that some drugs can better improve the performance and it also causes inequality in terms of medical ability.
]]> 2021-04-14 05:58:21 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415122945 Not convincing https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415130412 1.The writer assume that people get more interested if they see the athletes make a new record in the competition. He/She doesn't prove it. Maybe some sports like football, people are enjoyed in exciting atmosphere instead of a team make a high score.
2.The writer assume that doping can help the match become fair. Although the genetic code are different in white and black people, it doesn't mean it would be fair after they use steroids in football match. The statement  lack of support.
3.The writer assume the achievement of an athlete is breaking a new record. He/She assume it is a goal of the athletes. If the athletes lost this, he/she lost the fans. Some people may appreciate the spirit of the athletes.]]> 2021-04-14 06:01:58 UTC https://padlet.com/mattkfung/s85u87w9jltoc06n/wish/1415130412