SAMPLE ESSAY 2

Read the following passage, and think about how the author uses:

•          Evidence, such as applicable examples, to justify the argument.
•          Reasoning to show logical connections among thoughts and facts.
•          Rhetoric, like sensory language and emotional appeals, to give weight to the argument. 

The Last Amateurs

A man owns a factory that produces an item consumed regularly by hundreds of millions of captive customers. As his product is a cultural staple, the factory earns billions of dollars every year, and the man becomes extravagantly wealthy. Yet, while this golden empire flourishes, the factory workers toil day after day without compensation, nary a cent passing from the owner’ s pocket to their own. They labor on, resigned to destitution, cognizant of the corporeal cost of their existence.

You have been to this sweatshop. You have yelled at the workers to come on, implored them to dig deep, demanded that they give 110 percent today. And god bless them, they oblige, ravaging their bodies in tune to Our feral cheers. We are enablers, you and I; we are hypocrites blinded by our naivete. We are college sports fans. And now we must expunge our fanatical sins.

 It’ s difficult to conceptualize how such an economic injustice can persist in these United states of Free Market Capitalism, but the NCAA has managed to perpetuate exactly that with their iron-fisted control over major collegiate athletics. Consider that the NCAA and participating universities earned 6 billion dollars last year. Consider that NCAA president Mark Emmert earned 1.7 million dollars last year without ever taking the field. Or that Alabama football coach Nick Saban earned 6.9 million without over getting tackled, while Vanderbilt athletic director David Williams earned 3.2 million.

 Conversely, though the athletes are bringing the dollars (again, six billion of them annually), they see none of the profits. NCAA supporters will point to the academic scholarships that the athletes receive in return for the services, as if being forced to accept a lesser compensation still constitutes a sufficient payment for services rendered. Moreover, though these athletes receive full academic scholarships, they don’ t receive “cost of living” scholarships, which is to say that the schools don’ t even give them enough money to survive without personal expense. Superstar basketball player Shabazz Napier—who was the face of a national championship team as he filled arenas, sold thousands of over-priced jerseys, and enticed corporate sponsors to spend millions on commercial advertising during nationally-televised games—claims that he often went to bed hungry before he made it to the NBA. Though Shabazz earned tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the NCAA and the university of Connecticut, he was not even given enough to eat. Surely, none can argue that this is a just exchange.

 Here is the real kicker: this life of paucity is not voluntary, but rather a form of indentured servitude; football and basketball players are barred from playing in the NFL and NBA until they are three and one years removed from high school, respectively. They are forced to play college ball before being allowed to earn a living. This is akin to the corporate world saying, “Sorry, Bill Gates; though your Microsoft idea is revolutionary and will redefine technology as we know it, we really feel like you need to stay in college for three more years before you can start to monetize. But, in the meantime, how about you let us keep the billions in Microsoft profits, and we will pay your $50,000 tuition in return? So yes, you can point to the free education for athletes, but let us not be so gullible as to confuse complimentary with compulsory. 

In addition, what happens when a world-class athlete suffers a debilitating injury while biding his or her time and playing for the NCAA for free? Consider the case of former South Carolina running back Marcus Lattimore. Marcus was physically ready to be a star NFL player during his junior season, but he was prohibited from doing so. During this time, Marcus suffered a gruesome knee injury; despite rehabilitation, he has never really been the same, and his earning potential is mere decimal points of what it once was. To be blunt, Marcus’ career was ruined while the NCAA profited from his free labor. In a society that hangs its hat on the level playing field of free-market principles, it is baffling that such a travesty is permitted to continue.

Write a response that demonstrates how the author makes an argument to persuade an audience that college athletes should be paid. In your response, analyze how the author uses at least one of the features from the essay directions (or features of your own choosing) to develop a logical and persuasive argument. Be certain that your response cites relevant aspects of the source text.

Your response should not give your personal opinion on the merit of the source text, but instead, show how the author crafts an argument to persuade readers.

   Full Top-Scoring Essay Response

In the essay “The Last Amateurs,” the author attempts to convince the reader that college athletes deserve greater compensation than mere “athletic scholarships.” The author present facts to inform readers of policies by the NCAA that he finds unfair to the athletes. The author in the passage persuades the reader to his point of view through the use of allegory, and emotional appeal through specific examples. 

The author begins the passage with an allegory that eventually leads the reader to compare college athletes to sweet shop workers. He draws many similarities between the factory’ s products, and the “product” created by college athletes. Through terms like “culture staple” the reader is led to see the clear link between the two ideas. 

The author continues to say that the “gold empire flourishes” while the workers “day after day without compensation”. The media has recently sensationalized the effects of sweet shop labor and as such this would be an example near and dear to the hearts of many readers. By introducing the comparison at the beginning of the essay, the author is able to allow the reader to subconsciously mull the idea over as he makes other points. He later specifically cites the income of college athletic coaches and directors while pointing out that the athletes receive no, or little, compensation. With even a basic level of analysis, the reader can clearly see the parallels the author intends between sweet shop labor and college athletics.

Throughout the passage, the author uses specific examples to his advantage. By providing named examples, the author forces the reader to feel closer to the subjects and thus his overall topic. This closeness creates a bond with a PERSON rather than statistical examples. As people are more relatable than numbers, the author makes the reader feel sympathy and empathy with those he perceives as hurt by the system. 

The first issue the author brings up is compensation for athletes. This issue is explained through the example of Shabazz Napier. Napier made, possibly, millions of dollars for the NCAA but has reported often going to bed hungry prior to going professional. As the reader begins to wonder, “why stay in college? Why not go pro immediately” The author explains that basketball players are required to be at least one year removed from high school before playing in the NBA: ensuring that the NCAA will make profits off of them for at least one year.

The requirement of athletes to play college ball, for at least a period, is a perfect segue into the second example and problem. Marcus Lattimore exemplifies the issue of compensation and injury among college athletes. Athletics have a risk and reward system deeply ingrained in them. There is the possibility of fame and fortune, but also the very real risk that a person could be injured and end their career. By requiring athletes to play at a college level, they are risking their futures with no chance of reward.

This is exactly what happened with Lattimore. Lattimore suffered a knee injury that decimated his earning potential. Because these are “student-athletes” the NCAA is in no way required to pay workers compensations for these injuries or to allow the STUDENT-athletes to keep their scholarships. Had Lattimore been permitted to go straight to the NFL, he would have had the opportunity to earn more money and receive compensation following his injury.

The author crafts a very persuasive argument against the NCAA’ s current system. He uses allegory and emotional appeals through specific examples to expertly build a position that seems irrefutable. Shabazz Napier and Marcus Lattimore are real people whom the reader can easily empathize with. Overall, the author of “The Last Amateurs” is successful in his attempt to convince readers of his opinion.