The article begins very effectively with the use of a scenario as “children slump on the couch watching television…” which most children may be familiar with (although they may not be the target audience) and this draws the reader in. Moreover, it is a negative portrayal of a typical child, showing how inactive one can be due to today’s developed electronics such as ‘computer games’. Moreover, the starting sentence emphasises the inactiveness the the children: “the summer holidays are in full swing”, where ‘swing’ is an active word used inactively.
The point being argued is strengthened throughout with the use of direct quotations from experts such as scientists. Susan Greenfield, a professor ‘and one of the world’s leading experts on the brain’ clearly is in favour of activities which “boost” academic levels. This is backed up stating that ‘US studies have shown that, for example, listening to classical music can raise the IQ and that slumping on a couch to watch tv may cause alzheimer’s’. An experts point of view adds authenticity and reliability to the article and for those who opposed the point being made, may change their opinion. Moreover, for some this may be worrying as ‘slumping on a couch’ may have negative effects on a child and therefore, the parent may be convinced and persuaded.
A majority of the article uses facts and statistics throughout in order to stress the importance of making children more active and minimizing the mindset of laziness. The article moves into the importance of ‘academic performance’ and on how it links with ‘physical activity’. Again the direct quotations strengthen this view: ‘the more you are interacting and stimulating the circuits of the brain, the more agile are your brain cells’. Moreover, evidence is provided for those children who receive the ‘highest’ marks from exercising ‘at least three times a week’ as this further strengthens the argument and therefore, parents may be encouraged to push their children to exercise ‘at least three times a week’.
The article effectively uses rhetorical questions: ‘what point is there having five A-levels if you are going to die at 26 from cardiovascular problems?’.It causes us to contemplate on the consequences of having “all work and no play” and invites us to draw up on our own insights. Furthermore, the use of a group of three effectively shows us the advantage of students which were more active as in class they were ‘more calm and attentive and exhibited fewer disciplinary problems.
Overall, the article presents and very strong argument in favour of valuing exercise highly since ‘There does seem to be a strong correlation between high levels of physical activity and high academic achievements.’ This statement as mentioned by Ben Tan who has ‘reviewed much research’ is reinforced with the repetition of ‘high’ and alliteration on ‘academic achievements’ as this draws our attention. In conclusion, its use of constant evidence from researches and direct quotations allow it to be very reliable. It concludes very effectively and successfully, linking back to the main argument with the word ‘if’, showing the possibility of high success that the ‘government was looking for all along.’
