Professor: Jonathan Nehls Rhetorical and Visual Analysis on “How Performance-enhancing Drugs Work” Throughout this essay, I strive to analyze the rhetorical and visual strategies used within Craig Freudenrich’s article, “How Performance-enhancing Drugs Work,” with the purpose of examining his explanation and description about performance-enhancing drugs and determining whether he succeeded or failed at it. This article bases itself around familiarizing readers with all the divergent types of steroids and what they can provoke on the consumer.
It provides you with very in depth descriptions and scientifically proven effects on the applicants. Techniques which were skillfully used to create a strong, informative, and convincing article. The author’s style of writing is very convincing since he uses a lot of medical references in order to prove his statement. The article mentions a question that Dr. Gabe Markin asks to competitive runners in the Washington D. C. road race in 1967, “If I could give you a pill that would make you an Olympic champion — and also kill you in a year — would you take it? Out of a 100 runners, more than half answered yes. Therefore leading the reader to believe that this is a real issue that must be approached in any way possible. Hence, the writer’s credibility grows and the reader now trusts and believes what he or she reads. This article mostly contains writing that will persuade the reader intellectually. The author states, “The prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs in sports has increased. The desire to win is, naturally, ever present while, at the same time, new research and technologies have expanded the number of options for cheating your way onto the podium. Throughout the article the writer names numerous kinds of unnatural ways to build body mass and strength, all with descriptive definitions and possible side effects a user can acquire. However, the writer states that the number of users has increased, but fails to inform the reason behind why or how this has happened. Though the article’s primary purpose was to inform, the writer manages to reach the readers emotions about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The author states, “Some athletes get away with using drugs; others wind up suspended from their sport or even in jail, and still others die prematurely.
It’s a risky and complex game within a game that plays itself out on a public stage. ” This makes the reader feel how unacceptable it is to use drugs just for short moments of glory. It portrays that no game, race, or competition is worth winning with drugs if your life is threatened to be brought to an end. This article contains two visuals which consist of an images and a video. The image is a large sign being displayed in the bleachers of some sort of stadium. This sign has the words “Got Steroids? ” written in it.
Though it is not very straight forward, this helps the authors credibility by stating that steroids are a very common issue in the sports industry, therefore, many people familiarized with sports understand the double meaning of this sign. The pathos behind this image is how it is relatively connected to the commonly known phrase “got milk? ” This means makes the reader feel that some athletes see steroids as accepted as drinking milk. Hence, the logos behind this image is intellect that the viewer already had before reading the article.
The second visual of this article is a short informational video named, “Your Brain on Steroids…literally. ” This video speaks about the effects steroids have on the brain when taken during adolescence, and how the brain can change for life. This video gives the article higher credibility since it contains a scientific research on adolescent hamsters whom had been given anabolic steroids, and those who were only given sesame oil. The hamsters who had steroids showed to be much more aggressive than those who didn’t, proving that steroids have a negative affect in you no matter who you are.
The logic of this video’s argument is that even if you are not planning on using steroids for a long period of time you will still show all those effects it made on you long after you stop which supports the authors point of how you are much better off without them. Aftermost, the pathos behind this video is successful since it shapes the viewer to feel how unnatural that behavior is and how it is not worth placing your body and brain through all those unhealthy changes. Which is exactly what the writer portrayed in his article.
Ultimately, the writer’s intended audience are athletes, coaches, and the regular public that is somewhat connected to either one of the above. What led me to this conclusion is that throughout the whole article the writer made sure to spread the idea that steroids are not worth it for any athlete, therefore any athlete reading this will end with that knowledge by the end their reading. The informative part of how to detect these drugs and which ones can go without showing anything during a test are intended more for coaches.
These coaches want to know whom of their players might be using and how can they find out; whether by a test or by visible side effects. Conclusively, this article was highly convincing and informative to its readers and it is obvious that the author purposely used all these techniques in a planned manner. This allowed the author to portray his article in a very beneficial way which helped him succeed in presenting his ideas.
Works Cited Craig Freudenrich, Kevin P. Allen. How Performance-Enhancement Drugs Work. Retrieved from http://www. howstuffworks. com/athletic-drug-test. htm