Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Benjamin Belovich

Belovich 1

English 105

Professor J. Westley

18 March 2017

Responses to Norman Cousins Who Killed Benny Paret

1. Cousins persuades his readers and is successful in doing so through

his use of an upset and angry tone, which in turn makes readers feel

that boxing is wrong. He started his interview with Mike Jacobs, who

was a prominent boxing promoter through the first half of the

twentieth century. This is significant because Jacobs had an

incredible amount of power in his career.


2. Through the authors use of direct quotation, he can persuade

readers that boxing is a sport which allows people to get hurt for the

sheer purpose of entertainment. Cousins is right, when he implies

that most people who go to boxing events, go only for the violence

rather than the skill.


3. The author of this essay I feel does not have a specific audience, but

is simply writing to inform people that boxing is not just a form of

entertainment, but rather a sport that involves a life and death

situation in every match.


4. This story of the death of Benny Paret tells us that people go to

watch boxing matches to see fighters beat each other up. This

story explains how humans enjoy seeing others fight, and getting
hurt, with lots of blood being spilled in the process solely as a form

of entertainment.

Belovich 2
5. Everyone who heard about Parets death were shocked and

surprised. Investigations were launched to find out why Paret died.

There responses were obviously sincere. Cousins mentioned that

during the investigation, the investigators considered every

possible cause except the real one, his brain hemorrhaged from

being hit so many times.


6. The responsibility of the death, per the author, lies with the people

who paid to see the man hurt. Since the crowd wants [to see a]

knockout, it is shameful to even have anything to do with boxing, in

my opinion.