The article “Our Football Story: Should We Let Our Son Play Tackle Football” is written by Michael Lupton. Lupton writes about the growing issue of parents believing that football is too dangerous for their children to participate in. Lupton believes that parents should definitely allow their children to participate in tackle football, and uses research to prove it. The research is unbiased and published by medical professionals. Research shows that youth tackle football simply isn’t as dangerous as people make it out to be. This source will be analyzed and evaluated based on its accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. First, the article has great accuracy. The article covers a very specific subject and all of the conclusions in it are
…show more content…
The lowest form of injury they documented was a bruise. After the study was concluded, researches realized that youth football wasn’t any more dangerous than most other sports children would be playing at that age. Over 90% of all players didn’t even sustain an injury that resulted in them missing a single practice. This study was the first long-term study over youth football injuries and could help change many parents opinions on the danger of the sport. The article is very accurate towards the specific subject of injuries during youth football. Secondly, the article has weak objectivity. It is obviously biased. The author has a strong opinion that kids should be playing youth football. Lupton doesn’t offer any reasons for why a kid should not be playing youth football. For example, he fails to mention that while the overall amount of injuries isn’t significantly different than any other sport, the amount of head injuries are the most out of all youth sports. The author has a clear agenda, and that is he wants more kids to be playing youth football. He doesn 't hide the fact that he is biased …show more content…
It brings up a question at the beginning that parents everywhere have been asking. That question is, “Is youth football too dangerous for my son to participate in?” The article then goes on to answer that question with a resounding no. If a parent were to read the article because they were unsure if their kid should be playing youth football, it would do a great job convincing them. It makes it seem as if football is as harmless as golf. However, the study is limited to a very specific group of people. It 's limited to youth football players ages 4 to 13. As kids age they become stronger, and injuries become more prominent. At the professional level, the NFL has more injuries than any other professional sport. This shouldn 't be an issue for kids because they simply aren’t strong enough to hurt each other or themselves as much as adults can. For example, if a four year-old and a thirty year old man both sprinted head first into a wall, the man is going to more injured than the adult. The bodies of kids are more resistant to injuries and their brains have more plasticity.
In conclusion, Lupton’s article does a great job convincing parents to allow their children to participate in youth football. It provides data and shows reasons for why kids should be allowed to play. However, it doesn 't address the opposition and show why the opposition is wrong. Overall, the source is still very strong because it gives
The lowest form of injury they documented was a bruise. After the study was concluded, researches realized that youth football wasn’t any more dangerous than most other sports children would be playing at that age. Over 90% of all players didn’t even sustain an injury that resulted in them missing a single practice. This study was the first long-term study over youth football injuries and could help change many parents opinions on the danger of the sport. The article is very accurate towards the specific subject of injuries during youth football. Secondly, the article has weak objectivity. It is obviously biased. The author has a strong opinion that kids should be playing youth football. Lupton doesn’t offer any reasons for why a kid should not be playing youth football. For example, he fails to mention that while the overall amount of injuries isn’t significantly different than any other sport, the amount of head injuries are the most out of all youth sports. The author has a clear agenda, and that is he wants more kids to be playing youth football. He doesn 't hide the fact that he is biased …show more content…
It brings up a question at the beginning that parents everywhere have been asking. That question is, “Is youth football too dangerous for my son to participate in?” The article then goes on to answer that question with a resounding no. If a parent were to read the article because they were unsure if their kid should be playing youth football, it would do a great job convincing them. It makes it seem as if football is as harmless as golf. However, the study is limited to a very specific group of people. It 's limited to youth football players ages 4 to 13. As kids age they become stronger, and injuries become more prominent. At the professional level, the NFL has more injuries than any other professional sport. This shouldn 't be an issue for kids because they simply aren’t strong enough to hurt each other or themselves as much as adults can. For example, if a four year-old and a thirty year old man both sprinted head first into a wall, the man is going to more injured than the adult. The bodies of kids are more resistant to injuries and their brains have more plasticity.
In conclusion, Lupton’s article does a great job convincing parents to allow their children to participate in youth football. It provides data and shows reasons for why kids should be allowed to play. However, it doesn 't address the opposition and show why the opposition is wrong. Overall, the source is still very strong because it gives