Let Steroids Into The Hall Of Fame: Responses To Questions


1. The general subject of the essay is to explain that chemical enhancement is not always a negative practice.

2.  The main point is argue that there is another side of the use of steroids in baseball.

3.  The history of players that have been successful using steroids.  As well as the them being adults and having the right to choose to use steroids, instead of focusing on being good role models.

4.  To open the mind of the audience of Major League Baseball to not be so critical of their choices.  

5.  The audience that the writer is addressing and the opposing view point of steroids.  

6.  The writer is assuming that the audience opposes the use of steroids.

7.  They are not consistent with our own.  We feel it diminishes the value of the players talent and misrepresents the game. 

8.  The writer reveals a bias towards a positive history of steroids.  

9.  The documented negative evidence of steroids is briefly described in the essay, but doesn't expand on the negative health effects of steroids use.

10.  Further insight into the risk and examples of players who have negatively been effected by steroid use.

11.  It is not logical as it destroys the trust between the team and the fans of the game.

12.  Any theme or idea about steroid use always has a negative overtone.

13.  We have all known an individual who has used steroids and had negative effects from the use.
Dustin Saunders, Preston Allen, Conner Allen, and Madeleine Seltzer

http://7poundbag.com/2014/04/19/peds-and-the-record-book/