In Jerry Brewer's article,Fanatomy: As a sports town, we're underrated, he makes a broad claim that Seattle sports fans aren't exactly what they've been stereotyped to be: boring and fickle.

Right off the bat, Brewer presents his strategy for going debunking Seattle sports fan stereotypes. By using Demographics, interviews with the fans themselves and sports commentators, as well as history Brewer hopes to present a solid case and evidence to the reader, as well as give himself a level of authority.

He makes a motivational warrant when he says that Seattle sports fans can't be expected to be consistently passionate when Seattle sports teams are inconsistent themselves. He goes on to support this warrant by shedding some light on Seattle sports history of winning, or not winning in this case.

He seems to contradict his own warrants at times. One paragraph he says that Seattle fan can't be blamed for being dispassionate when teams lose and then later he says that despite losses fan bases for teams are strong. To top it off, he concludes his piece with saying that Seattleittes just aren't that into sports. This is a little confusing. I understand his point, but for me he loses some credibility.

I partially think that he flip flops because he trying to convince two different audiences. He uses the emotional and authority but he doesn't use them well together. We love sports, we hate sports, we only like teams when they win, just kidding, we secretly love them all the time---confusing!