Can a Playground Be Too Safe; Rhetorical Analysis
In the electronic book, Everything’s an argument. John Tierney discusses modern playgrounds. In the article, “Can a Playground Be Too Safe,” the author discusses the advantages and drawbacks of the current playground and its effect on the kids. Way back in 2011, when the article was written, there were controversies concerning the olden playgrounds that needed to be replaced with modern and safer playgrounds. The leading cause of this change was because of parental concern, lawsuits, and safety guidelines—the author talks of the impact of the modern playground on children who actively interact with contemporary playgrounds. Tierney talks of the children’s behavior, which is evident in later stages of development due to the modern playground (Banko, Ç.,& Çelik, S. S. 3). The author mentions that the modern playground is too safe for children, thus hindering children from developing emotionally. Additionally, the text is also accompanied by supporting sources, which captures a reader’s attention. Besides, with the effective use of pathos, ethos, and logos, the message is delivered to the audience on the advantages of the traditional playgrounds compared to the modern-day playground.
To begin with, Tierney uses emotional appeal, which ensures readers’ attention as it relates to people’s experiences. Pathos is used to deliver the message to an audience through evoking feelings by appealing to the emotions of the audience. For instance, the author indicates that playground safety is like a two-sided coin. Additionally, Dr. Ball also mentions that the thought that a playground is too safe may make the children take more risks when playing. Besides, Tierney proposes for fear of litigation as it helps in limiting some of the adventures in the playground. Risky activities in the playgrounds tend to motivate and raise self-esteem among kids and the sense of accomplishment. People often talk about their success and triumph feelings of overcoming their fears in their youths (Tierney). Concerning the article, safety playgrounds may cause retarded emotional development among the children. Children may be left with fears, which makes them vulnerable. Tierney utilized pathos in his work, which proposes the application of the traditional playgrounds compared to modern playgrounds.
Secondly, the author also utilized ethos in his articles. Ethos may be termed as the moral nature managing the beliefs of an organization or individual. Ethos is mainly constituted of three main elements, namely, trustworthiness, authority, and unselfish, with the intended motive. Tierney effectively builds trust with his audience as he presents himself as a trustworthy and reliable reference. Besides, his background and that of the source also adds to the efficiency of the article. The author believes that the modern playground has not provided a solution to reducing the accidents and injury rates among children. Besides, litigation rates have also inclined, which makes the modern playgrounds unsafe for children. Additional sources from the research indicate that modern playgrounds are dangerous for children compared to the old ones.
Thirdly, the article also indicates extensive research from diverse groups to present an argument on the use of logical appeal. Research sources make the article credible in proposing traditional playgrounds. The application of research is expressed by the facts, evidence, and reasons that further explain work. Tierney utilizes Logos in presenting his argument. Research indicates that the modern playground does not necessarily lower the average risk on the playground (Lammes). Additionally, research also shows that the rate of injuries among children has increased with modern playgrounds. Tierney ensures the use of evidence and facts from scholarly sources, which additionally helps in delivering the goal of his message. The structure of the article provides sufficient evidence used to clarify his proposition.
The use of instances, personal encounters, and sources help in delivering the main argument. For example, Tierney talks of the young girl who climbed to the top of the monkey bars. On reaching the top, the girl is proud that she had achieved something. The girl takes her chances and climbs to the top to experience it herself. In this case, Tierney expresses how the monkey bars prove to be victorious instead of dangerous as the girl once thought (Tierney). The girl must have learned a great lesson, which helps in delivering the message efficiently.
In conclusion, Tierney utilized research and personal experience to convince readers that modern playgrounds are too safe. The references used to share a frequent basis of experience and education. Additionally, the author also applies logos, pathos, and ethos in his articles, which make the article more appealing to readers. Playground safety is a primary concern for lawyers, parents, and schools concerned about the emotional development and safety of their children. Many of the recreational activities on the modern playground are risky and unsafe for the children. The modern playgrounds are less safe compared to the olden playgrounds. The modern playgrounds may be exciting but also affects the psychological wellbeing of the children. The modern playground is developed too safe for children’s playing, which may leave the children vulnerable. Besides, the emotional development of children is also affected by the modern playground. Unlike the olden playground, the modern playground is less effective in ensuring the safety of children. The author stresses the importance of safety in playgrounds, which is essential for their emotional growth and wellbeing.
Works Cited
Banko, Ç., & Çelik, S. S. “The Investigation of Outdoor Playgrounds in terms of Supporting
Risky Play.” Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education (INUJFE) (2018): 19(3).
James, S. Destabilizing Playgrounds: Cartographical Interfaces, Mutability, Risk, and Play. In
Playful Disruption of Digital Media (pp. 87-97). Singapore.: Springer, 2018.
Tierney, J. Can a playground be too safe? New York Times., 2011.