Most cushioned natural ride—featuring the Men’s Nike Free 5.0. Ideal for runners new to natural running, with the cushioning and support of a traditional shoe. Low-profile cushioning and a rounded heel encourage a natural footstrike. It’s the year 2016, and Nike is still advertising junk on their website. On average, these high-end shoes cost over $100, but these pricey shoes are not the only detriment to our runners, but also injuries. In the non-fictional narrative, Born to Run, journalist Christopher McDougall maintains the thesis that running companies, such as Nike—eliminate running competition in America, with the adoption and marketing of cushioned shoes. McDougall effectively employs logical evidence and credibility to validate his thesis that running companies diminished running competition in America. First, to establish strong logical evidence,
…show more content…
Bernard Marti, M.D, who specialized in the discipline of preventative medicine at Switzerland’s University of Bern, which evaluated the “painful truth” of high-end shoes with big price tags (171). Dr. Marti’s work claims, “RUNNERS wearing top-of-the-line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap shoes...” (171). The qualifier, “more likely,” was strategically employed to establish credibility of the logical claim. Moreover, McDougall supports Dr. Marti’s credibility by mentioning the study’s survey of 4,358 runners (172). The survey demonstrates an effective use of logic by utilizing a claim supported by a large sample size to support McDougall’s thesis that high-end shoes are the cause of decline in competitive running in America. McDougall revisits the claim regarding high-end shoes, by stating: “Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in
Bernard Marti, M.D, who specialized in the discipline of preventative medicine at Switzerland’s University of Bern, which evaluated the “painful truth” of high-end shoes with big price tags (171). Dr. Marti’s work claims, “RUNNERS wearing top-of-the-line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap shoes...” (171). The qualifier, “more likely,” was strategically employed to establish credibility of the logical claim. Moreover, McDougall supports Dr. Marti’s credibility by mentioning the study’s survey of 4,358 runners (172). The survey demonstrates an effective use of logic by utilizing a claim supported by a large sample size to support McDougall’s thesis that high-end shoes are the cause of decline in competitive running in America. McDougall revisits the claim regarding high-end shoes, by stating: “Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in