Roger Federer Was Extremely Influenced

Roger Federer was extremely influenced by the legacy of Pete Sampras but has surpassed him.

P2: Roger Federer has won 17 Grand Slams, more than any other singles player.

P3: Roger Federer has won Grand Slams on all three major surfaces which Sampras did not.

Therefore, Roger Federer is one of the greatest tennis players of our time and surpassed Sampras in his legacy to the sport.

Argument Assignment II

P1: Federer hired Pete Sampras' former coach Paul Annacone.

P2. Both Federer and Sampras are known for their big serves but Federer's serve is even more powerful.

Roger Federer was extremely influenced by the legacy of Pete Sampras but has surpassed him.

P1. Federer has won Grand Slams by excelling on hard court, clay, and grass.

P2. Only two other male tennis players have shown equal mastery of all three surfaces and Federer has more Grand Slams in total than both of them.

Roger Federer has won Grand Slams on all three major surfaces which Sampras did not do.

Assignment III

Key terms:

Definitions: 'Influence' is defined by coaching/being coached in the same style as a particular player

Unique: Defined as doing things other people have not done before

Fallacies: Hasty generalization -- it is assumed that because Federer was coached by the same coach as Sampras this means he wished to emulate Sampras or that Sampras was a motivating factor in his selection, although a number of other variables could have had an impact on his decision. Also, there are many other factors that can influence an athlete besides coaching in terms of how he plays the game and manages his career. This could also be said to be a fallacy of composition, whereby attributes of parts of the 'whole' (one aspect of Sampras' life) is used to make a generalization about the whole itself (in this case, Sampras' entire career). There is also the hasty generalization of assuming that excelling on different surfaces equals overall excellence in a wide variety of environments. Finally another hasty generalization is that there are other ways of measuring 'greatness' in the sport, including the cultural impact and the even the popularity of the player amongst fans. It is also difficult to compare players from one era of tennis to another. Therefore, the argument also shows a failure of ambiguity.