PLANNNNNN

does the author make a nod to the complexity of the argument??

List:
What do my 3 sources have in common:
     *They all use statistics
     *They all have direct player,coaches, and owner quotes
     *They all take, which is perceived through pathos, a emotionally connected stance.
     *emotional stands are taken into account with the factual evidence to back them.
     *They are each written by sports writers, who have direct interaction with the Dallas Cowboys
     *They each give a vast range of regional perception (ESPN-Large range, Star Telegram- Small/more personal, Dallas News- Close proximity as well)
     *Each assumes that the audience knows something about the past happenings of the team, and the actual happenings right now.
     *Each audience is a Cowboys' fan, or a person interested in the National Football League.;
     *Each article is relatively short, showing the norm of most sport periodicals as well as each are in textual form.
     *Each connect to Pathos-even if they are contradicting ideas
     *Each author has a high amount of Ethos
     *Each essay makes a strong and supported case for their side, but neither gives a strong look into the contradicting idea.

How are they different:
     * One report is from a large regional standpoint, one is from a close range- more pathos and emotion, the last one is also a close range but gives a contradicting idea.
     *Each essay sites the main reasons why or why not the Cowboys' are a good team or will make it to the playoffs.
     *The two essays support the majority idea that the Cowboys are bad but do not give a nod to other statistics indicating that there is still a very possible chance for the team to do well.
     * The essay that contradicts this main idea is one that is supported by different statistics but still gives a nod to the other side of the argument. The paper is written almost in response to, or in argument of the other two more commonly found periodicals.

RED=Good argument strategy
Blue= Bad argument strategies