The article"Can a Playground Be too Safe?," by John Tierney, begins with a great deal of emotion based on Henry Stern's statement, who was the New York City Parks Commissioner. Stern's refusal to change playgrounds and therefore make them safer was based solely on his experiences as a child. Tierney is using Stern's statement to establish an emotional connection with his readers. As the article progresses, Tierney starts to establish logical reasoning based on factual research. Tierney tries to lure the reader in by using emotional, factual and professional inputs to get the point across. Tierney opens the essay by showing an example of Stern, the commissioner in the 1900s for city parks. Stern was a believer of high playground jungle gyms because he had played on them as a child. Tierney appeals to the audience by using a professor of psychology, Ellen Sandseter, for a source to claim if playgrounds are indeed too dangerous or not. Sandseter states that playgrounds and tall heights are a positive thing in a child's life. She also adds, "Monkey bars and tall slides are some of the few features that can still give children thrilling experiences.  Sandseter has a similar view to Stern's opinion by stating that although there may be risk, kids need to experience new things to build confidence. He brings researchers standpoints into the article in order to give facts on the claims of playgrounds being high risk for injury. These professional opinions on the matter give the audience a proper understanding on why playing on the playground has a positive feedback in the long run in a child's development. Stern starts off with a perspective of Pathos by sharing his experience of the playground as a child in New York. He references his pure thrill of the high slides, monkey bars and jungle gyms as necessary for his own personal development. In addition, he is establishing to remove this equipment would end up being detrimental to the fut