1. I reviewed " the difference between field and box lacrose". fromthe first article i didnt end up learning much but i deffinatly agreed with the writers opions and points of view on the subject. the writers style of writing seemed to include the presentation on a lot of facts a at the end giving his own opinion.
2. "why lacrosse should be on tv" was an awful article. it was not well written and all over the place with its ideas. this article game me false facts and the opions of this writer resembled that of a 2 year old. the writer had no basis for the things he said and obviously has no clue as to what he is talking about. though i agree lacrosse should be shown more on tv, that is as far as it goes with how much we have in common. horrible article.
3. the third article was basicly a rule book in my opinion. the entire article it seemed was full of rules, regulations, and guidlines. yes, the difference in the playing fields is important but so much infasis on the matter is completily unessissary. i cannot agree or dissagree with any of the writers opinion because i feel i was not given strong enough evidence that the writer supported one on his own. ove all, well writen presintation of facts, a good read for all beginers
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.