1. The writer establishes a common ground near the ending of the first paragraph. The writer establishes that the opposing side and himself want the Olympic games to keep going on. He suggests a solution to establish permanent Olympic sites in countries that exhibit the core values of the Olympic Games. On that take if the writer is able to complete the solution both sides will be satisfied. The writer is successful because he finds a solution that benefits both sides of the argument. Both sides are given what they wanted and at the end they both get to watch the Olympic games.
2. The evidence the writer supplies to support his viewpoint is when he talks about China’s repeating violation of human rights and the heavily debated decision to put the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The writer provides the evidence that says, “not only did China invade Tibet in the 1950s, but it has continued to use harsh measures to suppress political dissent (“Speak Out”). The writer provides the evidence that says, “Tibet, China also sold weapons to Sudan that were used to carry out the genocide in Darfur” (Nabaum 1). …show more content…
As well as until paragraph 4. The writer says that the opposing side thinks boycotting would cause too many problems. The other opposing viewpoint gets more in depth. It address that boycotting is essentially denying athletes rights, fosters a “politically correct” value system, and undermines the spirit of the games. The writer also addresses the opposing side would argue that boycotting would not be hurting the athletes more and punish them. The writer does do enough to acknowledge them because he addresses the opposing side viewpoints various times not just once. Although, he only provide one piece of evidence for the opposing side. It was a good piece of evidence because he used an Olympian personal story. The true story is from Anita DeFrantz, a a former U.S