Question

which statement primarily appeals to pathos to support the position that professional athletes should not be allowed to use performance - enhancing drugs?
performance - enhancing drugs have been shown to be unhealthy for those who take them, causing harmful side effects such as heightened aggression, heart palpitations, and hypertension.
as a sports physical therapist, i work with many athletes who have experienced adverse physical effects from performance - enhancing drugs.
allowing professional athletes to use dangerous performance - enhancing drugs would be the downfall of sports as we know it.

Explanation:

Pathos appeals to emotions. The statement "Allowing professional athletes to use dangerous performance - enhancing drugs would be the downfall of sports as we know it" evokes an emotional response by suggesting a catastrophic outcome for sports, tapping into people's love and concern for sports. The first statement uses logos (appeal to logic with facts about health effects), and the second uses ethos (appeal to authority/credibility as a sports physical therapist) or also some pathos but less strongly than the third in terms of the emotional impact of "downfall of sports".

Answer:

Allowing professional athletes to use dangerous performance - enhancing drugs would be the downfall of sports as we know it.