To quickly summarize: Golinkin’s main point in the article is persuading parents to let their children play dangerous sports. Golinkin believes dangerous sports help “children learn to strive, to succeed and most importantly, how to fail.” Families must take the time to evaluate their options whether or not dangerous sports are for their children. Finally, Golinkin says parents shouldn’t be so protective of their children, because “life is not going to be easy or safe, even for the competent.” No matter what regulations you put on a child, they are going to do what they love to do. The appeal to reason is very weak, but Golinkin used many strong sources to strengthen his argument whether or not parents should let their children play dangerous …show more content…
One of his main points was Moore dying in the X-Games on live ESPN, and Junior Seau shooting himself because of chronic traumatic encephalopathy was another of his other major points. On the other hand, Obama stated that if he had a son he would have to think long and hard before letting his son play football. I feel like Golinkin’s points in the article do not match up with his main point. After going over and analyzing the article, Golinkin stated that you should let your children play the sport that they desire, even if they face the consequences of major injury. I feel that the evidence Golinkin gives does not support his main idea, the evidence made me not want to let my children play a dangerous