Bring Gold To The Middle East

As a college freshman and someone who took advanced English all four years of high school, I know the importance of an essay’s capturing introduction. If the reader’s attention isn’t grasped within the first few sentences, it takes a lot more effort to successfully persuade them as the essay goes on. As a college freshman and an uncultured citizen of society, the “4,000 LED lights [brightening] the sky in a captivating sight” of the Aspire Tower didn’t catch my eye, as I truly had no clue what the Aspire Tower was, or where it was located.   Despite this, the details and imagery were easily captivating and promised me that Doha was the only intellectual choice for this massive decision. Unfortunately, this only stayed convincing until I began the next section of the essay.
The thesis and antithesis were completely contradictory, as obviously stated in their titles.   The arguments that were discussed were ones that could be made by almost any country, and guessed by any reader; every country would benefit from a large-scale event such as this. I highly doubt any country would reject the world-wide attention, surge in tourism, or “economic boom” that comes with hosting the world’s largest sporting event. What citizens, leaders, or participants of the games wouldn’t be ecstatic to say the 2016 Olympics was held in their home country?
The most surprising argument, the only one that I wasn’t completely convinced of both sides, the only one that wasn’t directly related to Filer’s argument, was the synthesis, which stated that the decision of where the 2016 Olympics will take place isn’t as significant as it appears to be. My brain was boggled, before I realized the following paragraph agreed with my astonishment and explained the location of the Olympics is not only crucial to the success of the games, but also would be historic for years to come.
Christine Filer’s essay “Bring Gold to the Middle East” was a persuasive roller coaster ride from start to finish. As...