I read an article entitled "Who's Better, Shaq or Duncan? DUNCAN" (Garner & McNeal). The article was obviously an argument about whether Shaquille O"Neal or Tim Duncan is the better basketball player. Two separate authors, one supporting Shaq and the other supporting Duncan wrote it. Both parts were pretty short, so it isn't that hard to summarize.
The argument is simple: Who's better, Shaq or Duncan? For Shaq, the author uses a survey and an analogy (both described in Chapter 9: How Good Is the Evidence: Personal Observation, Case Studies, Research Studies, and Analogies?). Stem McNeal concludes the argument for Shaq by saying, "He has a combination of size, speed, and skill no other player has exhibited. Ever. So even when he's not at his best, he's still better than Tim Duncan and every other player on the planet" (2003, p. 13).
For Duncan, the author uses statistics (described in Chapter 11: Are the Statistics Deceptive?) and "the facts" (described in Chapter 8: How Good Is the Evidence: Intuition, Appeals to Authority, and Testimonials?). Tricia Garner concludes the argument for Duncan by saying, "It's common to take Duncan for granted. Maybe it's his mild-mannered demeanor; maybe it's a pitfall of being so dependable. But while Shaq might make the highlight reels, Duncan's steady excellence is the real achievement. I"ll take top-level consistency over flashy dunks any day" (2003, p. 13).
The first reason used was a survey. A survey is simply a question or list of questions given to either a select group of people or people at random in order to find out the overall average answers. The author clearly states that, "Even last season, when Shaq "struggled" in the first half, general managers in our annual top-players survey overwhelmingly voted Shaq the No. 1 player" (McNeal, 2003, p. 13).
The next reason used for Shaq was an analogy. An analogy is a connection between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
