*disclaimer: I did not have my part A at the time this essay was written, as a result, all quotes from part A are the closest approximation possible*
The two texts studied carry many interesting similarities and differences. First of all, it should be noted that both texts are from different genres which means that there will inevitably be genre-related differences. The first text, by Paul Dimeo is a speech delivered over the radio. On the other hand, the other text is an online comment in response to Dimeo's speech. As a result, the audiences will be considerably different too. Dimeo's speech will be heard by all those listening to the radio, most likely people of the pre-Internet generation. The comment will most likely be viewed by people …show more content…
It is known that anecdotal evidence can support a thesis. In the case of Dimeo, he appears to have used the examples of David Millar, Marco Pantani and Calllum Priestley to support his thesis. Furthermore, he develops each case, noting how they affected the sporting community. In a way this too can be seen as a rule of three, three different cases surrounding the same issue which represent the majority of doping cases. The desired result is most likely to further persuade Dimeo's audience while also validating his opinion. Furthermore, anecdotes can be used as a way to draw the audience in since there is a degree of sensationalism that surrounds these stories that statistics cannot replicate. Audiences are often entertained by stories and as a result, Dimeo has exploited this fact to leave a lasting impact upon his audience. The comment also uses the same anecdotes, though most likely not to entertain an audience. The comment also discusses the "cases of Millar and Pantani," as a way of responding to the talk. Furthermore, by doing this, the author is able to emphasise the fact that their comment is indeed a response to Dimeo's talk. As a result, both texts use anecdotes as a way of validating their case and furthering their
The two texts studied carry many interesting similarities and differences. First of all, it should be noted that both texts are from different genres which means that there will inevitably be genre-related differences. The first text, by Paul Dimeo is a speech delivered over the radio. On the other hand, the other text is an online comment in response to Dimeo's speech. As a result, the audiences will be considerably different too. Dimeo's speech will be heard by all those listening to the radio, most likely people of the pre-Internet generation. The comment will most likely be viewed by people …show more content…
It is known that anecdotal evidence can support a thesis. In the case of Dimeo, he appears to have used the examples of David Millar, Marco Pantani and Calllum Priestley to support his thesis. Furthermore, he develops each case, noting how they affected the sporting community. In a way this too can be seen as a rule of three, three different cases surrounding the same issue which represent the majority of doping cases. The desired result is most likely to further persuade Dimeo's audience while also validating his opinion. Furthermore, anecdotes can be used as a way to draw the audience in since there is a degree of sensationalism that surrounds these stories that statistics cannot replicate. Audiences are often entertained by stories and as a result, Dimeo has exploited this fact to leave a lasting impact upon his audience. The comment also uses the same anecdotes, though most likely not to entertain an audience. The comment also discusses the "cases of Millar and Pantani," as a way of responding to the talk. Furthermore, by doing this, the author is able to emphasise the fact that their comment is indeed a response to Dimeo's talk. As a result, both texts use anecdotes as a way of validating their case and furthering their