Analyzing Skateboard Argument Evidence

In “Half-Criminals” or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders, David Langley uses a great deal of evidence to try and convince the reader that skateboarders are not menaces to society and should be treated better by officials. The most compelling piece of evidence is the fact that he himself is a skateboarder who has, along with his friends, frequently suffered many injustices just because he skates. These include having a friend receive a $50 ticket for skateboarding in an area that even said it was ok to skateboard in during Holidays. He also uses very effective analogies when he says skateboarding is as natural as surfing, in that people are adapting to their environment. He appeals to people’s senses of emotion by continually giving examples of skaters being harassed and even says that cities have tried to accommodate skaters, but are not succeeding. To further emphasize his point, he offers what he considers reasonable and safe solutions to the problem, which shows the reader that he really wants to find a solution. His argument accurately fills out every portion of the STAR method of looking at evidence. The evidence is accurate (mainly because it is based off his opinion or memory), it is relevant to his argument, he provides more than enough evidence (though some statistics may have been helpful) and, according to him, the evidence he presents is representative of what happens to a majority of skaters.