In “Why Do We Teach Girls That It’s Cute to Be Scared,” the claim is relatively explicit: we are teaching girls that they should be scared and require help, and that this is not okay. The claim is not absolute, because the author admits that certain parents are outliers and actually encourage their daughters to engage in risky and dangerous behavior, rather than just their sons. The author is making this claim because several studies have found that parents are more likely to tell their daughters to be careful, to encourage their sons to take risks, and to assist their daughters when they do engage in risky/dangerous behavior. In Caroline Paul’s opinion article, nearly every paragraph consists of some form of evidence to support her claim, whether it be in the form of research, anecdotes, or examples. Her evidence is far more believable when it comes in the form of research published in noteworthy journals, or relevant examples. However, Paul’s evidence in the form of anecdotes seems random and misplaced. She tries to tie in her own personal story, but then admits that she and her family are examples of outliers. Essentially, she is providing evidence against the point she’s trying to make; that there actually are girls out there who are not …show more content…
The first scientific journal stated that parents warned their daughters of risks and dangers more so than they warned their sons and that they were more likely to help their daughters if they engaged in risky or dangerous behavior. The latter announced that parents are “four times more likely to tell girls than boys to be more careful” after accidents that lead to emergency room visits. Paul also cites an idea from Gever Tulley’s “50 Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do”: “dangerous activities under supervision can teach kids responsibility, problem-solving and