The author explains cognitive training and clarifies the terms and ideas that are being discussed; the purpose of the second paragraph is to give the audience an explanation of the cognitive training programs and define the terms used. Appreciating complexity, evident in recognition of critics’ points of view, illuminates the author’s knowledge as well as successfully establishes logos. A. Mark Williams, chairman of the department of health, kinesiology and recreation at the University of Utah, (a NeuroTracker critic) is quoted in his doubts about the program. The author uses these disputes to better her argument and claim that Williams can only critique the NeuroTracker because more evidence is needed, which supports her main claim that further research needs to be done. In addition to making a concession, the author recognizes why the critic must be cautious—showing good judgment—in order to keep a good, reliable reputation himself.…