Persuasion

In honor of the Super Bowl this weekend, I chose a persuasive piece about the game written by Sports Illustrated columnist Paul Zimmerman.

His column is not organized like the papers English 1000 teach their students to write. Although his entire article supports his thesis (the Colts will beat the Bears on Sunday), he does not state his position until the end (probably to encourage readers to read all four paragraphs).

He begins with the most compelling evidence—the Colts run a no-huddle offense that wears down the opponent’s defense. Zimmerman returns to this point in the second paragraph, acknowledging a counter-argument—the Bills Super Bowl teams of the early 1990s used a similar tactic and lost the big game four consecutive years. This seems to suggest that running the no-huddle can cause more problems for the offense than for the defense. Zimmerman uses a quotation from a Colts offensive lineman, a denial that the Colts offensive players tire from the no-huddle offense—further strengthening his argument.

I think Zimmerman’s article is persuasive in part because of who he is. As Aristotle suggests in the “Rhetoric,” the reputation of the person speaking can affect how persuasive their augment is. Zimmerman spends hours watching and analyzing pro football. His reputation as a scholar of the game brings him credibility.