CL 6/28 – In Defense of Domination

Predictions:

• Title
  • The title does not remind me of any other texts
  • The title gives a brief idea of the author’s argument on why rooting for the most privileged team makes sense
• Context
  • The historical context of this article is clearly shown through the author’s referencing of events from 2004, such as Alex Rodriguez joining the Yankees
• Prior Knowledge
  • I don’t have any prior knowledge on this subject because I don’t watch baseball
• Genre and Purpose
  • I think the purpose of this article will be to argue against rooting for the underdog, and to then put that argument in to a larger context, such as using it to say something about society as a whole

After First Reading:

• This text is an argument against rooting for the underdog, and using that argument to make a critique of society as a whole
• This text made me feel angry because I felt that the author was angry when he wrote it
• This text does not remind me of any other texts
• The most important part of the text are the last two paragraphs where the author summarizes his main argument by saying that the Yankees teach the true story of America and that there is nothing righteous about rooting for the under dog
• It could be argued that the not so obvious purpose is the way that the main argument is used to critique society because it is slightly hidden by the baseball analogy
• The text could have mentioned the opposite argument fairly because there are real underdogs that have been successful

Evaluating Evidence and Assumptions:

• The evidence used is not accurate
• The evidence is relevant because it does relate to the subject
• There is enough evidence to be convincing
• The evidence is not representative because it fails to include real underdogs who have risen up to become successful
• The author assumes that America is not the underdog anymore, and society does not relate to the underdog anymore
• These assumptions are valid but the assumption that society does not relate to the underdog could be fairly challenged
• I do not see any assumptions that have been missed