In the Runner's World article, "Should Kids Run Long? : Can too many miles ruin young runners?", Jonathan Beverly, successful runner and cross country and track coach, responds to the criticisms aimed at a previous article about a 12 year-old girl's 50 plus miles per week training plan. Through the appeal of logos, with the support of pathos, he explains it is wrong for adults to criticize children who want to train in long-distance running. His voice is steady and supported by various types of sources, which makes his argument style most like a "rational discourse" (The Carolina Rhetoric 83). He quotes numerous doctors and long-time runners that say running as a child is no different than running as an adult, and ultimately, it only makes kids faster and more fit for their age, if done in a healthy way, of course. He identifies the root of the criticisms as "cultural bias", and compares young American runners and young Kenyan runners to show why the flawed idea that children should not be running long-distance is so widespread in America today (Beverly).

Beverly persuades readers that children can run as many miles as they want, assuming they are willing and able, by taking the criticisms the young girl received about her running and throwing back logic in the form of statements made by doctors and runners who started long-distance running young and benefitted largely from it. Once he made the point that all of the criticisms were myths health-wise, in case the views of health-professionals were not persuasive enough, he turned to the Kenyans. The Kenyans dominate much of the running world, and they do this because from the time they are young, they are running many more miles than American children, just as a means of transportation, and they are consistently some of the best runners in the world, yet few will criticize their lifestyle like they do with the young American girl. Beverly associates this trend with the high percentage of overweight people in our country, and also that in the mainstream organized "ball-dominated sports", running is viewed as a punishment (Beverly). These norms, along with ideas of body image comparisons and self-esteem in competition, in a sport where the best athletes are often thinner than the average American, makes people believe that too much running can damage children. By moving from recognizing the opposing arguments, to falsifying them with facts, to diagnosing the people who have the opposing view with cultural bias, Beverly exposes their logical fallacies, which are most prominently non sequitur and ad populum (The Carolina Rhetoric). This makes the reader feel as if there is no logic in rejecting youth running. 

The organization and content embedded in Beverly's article make his arguing effective, but in terms of kairos, he is making the mistake of preaching to the choir, since this appears in a running magazine (The Carolina Rhetoric). I'm not sure if he had many other options of where he could publish this piece, but chances are if you are reading Runner's World, you are experienced in the field and probably already don't hold the opposing view that youth running is not good for social or physical development, because you've seen it in action. If possible, he should have presented this piece to physicians, who are struggling to help parents develop healthy lifestyle choices in their children, and who fear running. The consequences of Beverly's argument would be more parents allowing and even encouraging their kids to run. Once they start to acknowledge that research has given kids no reason not to run for far as a marathon with the proper training, more kids will attempt to pursue it, which will inspire their peers. If this argument is made to the right groups of people, it could make a huge contribution to ending the obesity epidemic in America. That very talented and very healthy 12 year-old girl wouldn't stand out so much against her peers.

Focusing on the topic of rhetoric this article responds to, the 12-year old girl, we see that Beverly also engages pathos to strengthen his argument (The Carolina Rhetoric). The parents of children who run have been relentlessly criticized that they are hurting their children by allowing them to train and participate in this sport. By reading his argument, those criticizing his judgment will see how children who run long-distance feel isolated and even bullied by adults and peers who wouldn't even think about doing their workouts. Even kids who do it for pure enjoyment start to worry if they are hurting themselves in the long run (no pun intended). The myths are making runners nervous, and that's just not fair. Beverly quotes the father and coach of the 12 year-old girl who says, "We say that the reason American runners are behind is that they are 10,000 miles behind the Africans by the time they get to high school. Then you have someone who actually isn't going to be 10,000 miles behind and we say 'Woah, hold on now ... " (Mark Hadley in Beverly). Pathos works here to make the opponents of youth running feel like bullies, picking on kids and their parents because they are too fearful themselves to put in the effort to be healthy and happy like those who love the challenge of many miles.

The only thing that Beverly's argument lacks is a sense of ethos. I looked him up on my own and found his extensive running background, which provides him with plenty of experience to see how running is a positive thing and has done no long-term harm to young runners. He should explain this background more to show opponents that he is sincerely concerned for the runners and potential runners. He wants to defend the sport and help people make the healthy choice to run. He quotes many resources to show that he has knowledgeable and connected to the running world, so he could have pulled some more examples of his personal coaching style and the lack of running-related health problems that he sees, and that critics make up. This lack of ethos, or credibility, on his part can be ignored during the argument, because it was so reasonable, but when the article ends, you look back and wonder who the author is that he can speak so passionately and reasonably about youth running (The Carolina Rhetoric).

Logos works well in Beverly's argument, with the support of pathos, because the argument and the facts that inform it are supported in one girl's story of being criticized on unfounded claims. While ethos is not present in terms of the author, it certainly it certainly comes from his strong, persuasive resources, of which he quotes many. While his argument may not be popular and might be considered bold and somewhat insulting to the opposing side, it is necessary in improving our society. It is really not presented very harshly, it is a very calm article that hears the claims of the other side and responds to them with how they are flawed, and it says that the problem is with our society as a whole, so views some hold may just be there from tradition, not from really researching the situation. As stated in The Carolina Rhetoric, "Good arguments do not use 'overheated rhetoric,' false evidence, or logical fallacies to win over an audience" (The Carolina Rhetoric 14). This is precisely the opposite of what this article does, but it what the opposing side seems to thrive on, according to Beverly.

