Rhetorical Analysis: Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Rhetorical Analysis Do you think college athletes should be paid? Al Woods believes college athletes should be paid because the schools are making money off the players, some athletes are being paid under the table, and athletes are giving up on education. However, Krikor Meshefejian believes that college students should not be paid because students receive scholarships, the payment system is problematic, and the experience is payment enough. Meshefejian has the better argument that students should not be paid. One reason why Meshefejian has the better argument is his credibility on this topic. Al Woods wrote the weaker opposing viewpoint that students should be paid. Al Woods was a college athlete at Louisiana State University; making him a bias author. He only sees the struggles and problems to his argument. Krikor Meshefejian wrote the stronger viewpoint with the best credibility.
Woods’ reasons for college athletes to be paid aren’t as justifying. Woods’ reasons are based mainly upon money. One of Woods’ reasons are athletes should be paid because coaches are paid and the schools are making money off the sports. Another reason why Woods’ fees this way is because students are paid under the table. He thinks since they secretly receive money they might as well be paid. However, Meshefejian uses more justifying reasons that are supported well. One of Meshefejian’s reasons is college’s primary function is to provide education for students. Another reason that Meshefejian uses is students already receive some of the colleges money through scholarships. A final reason that Meshefejian uses is the problematic paying system between coaches and players, female and male athletes, and how much teams would pay to recruit players for a “dream team”, etc. An additional reason Meshefejian uses is that the college experience is payment