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, Alana Hadley's 50 plus miles per week training plan. Many people think that children should not be running anywhere approaching this many miles, or even at all because of potential physical and psychological risks. Beverly employs logos as his main appeal to argue that criticizing the children running many more miles than the average American child is wrong. He chooses this approach because those who do not run can understand facts and logical reasoning better than pathos or ethos coming from running culture, and it leaves little room for rebuttal. It is wrong for people to criticize children who want to participate in long-distance running because not enough research has been done, credible sources experienced with the effects of youth running have no problem with it, and there are undeniable cultural patterns that can be attributed to the origin of the myth that the lifestyle is bad for health. The author's voice is steady and supported by various types of sources, which makes his argument style most like a "rational discourse" (The Carolina Rhetoric 83). Also employing ethos, he quotes doctors and long-time runners that say running as a child is not dangerously 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.

Through logos, Beverly persuades readers that children can run as many miles as they want, assuming they are willing and able, by taking the criticisms Alana Hadley received about her running and refuting with logic in the form of statements made by doctors and runners, who started long-distance running young and benefitted largely from it. Logos is used here to argue that science and history tell us overwhelmingly that youth running is ultimately good. Once Beverly 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. They are consistently some of the best runners in the world, yet few will criticize their lifestyle like they do with young American girl, Alana Hadley. Beverly associates the criticisms young American runners receive with the high percentage of overweight people in our country. In addition, if we look to the mainstream organized "ball-dominated sports", even these more athletic kids view running often as a punishment (Beverly). Beverly very methodically recognized the opposing arguments, presented the facts, and then exposed the inadequacies in the arguments of the critics of youth running. This causes readers to see that there is no logic behind 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 Alana Hadley wouldn't stand out so much against her peers.

Focusing on the topic of rhetoric this article responds to, Alana Hadley, 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 Beverly's argument, those criticizing his judgment will realize 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). Beverly alludes to how the myths are making runners nervous, and that it's not fair to them. He quotes Mark Hadley, the father and coach of Alana Hadley, 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. Beverly's article was published in a running magazine, because the majority of people don't want to be told that they are wrong. This is a strategic move, because when people who support youth running are questioned or criticized, this article gives them a sample strong argument to respond with. The reason that youth running is not a popular idea is because there is no research that definitively says it is good or bad, so the lazy majority says that it is probably bad. However, if Beverly's argument is spread, the critics will run out of excuses.

Beverly himself has had plenty of experience to see how running is a positive thing and has done no long-term harm to young runners. To establish invented ethos cites educated people with a wealth of information. He should have explained this background more to show opponents that he is sincerely concerned for the runners and potential runners, to establish his situated ethos. It is clear he wants to defend the sport and help people make the healthy choice to run. He quotes many resources to show that he is knowledgeable and connected to the running world, but 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).

Overall, 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 Alana Hadley'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.

