Throughout the history of mankind, humans are always in the pursuit of challenging and exceeding the records that are previously been made. In every sport of the Olympics arena, players not only do their best to earn glory for their country but also attempt to reach a new limit for mankind. Bolt, who set a record of 9.58s in Berlin, has dominated the 100-meter sprint world record during the past years. While humans are in the continual process of achieving better records and achievements, there comes the question: is it possible that someone will exceed Bolt's record in the future? In the article “Is the fastest Human Already Alive?”, the author uses counterarguments and rhetorical questions to both celebrate and question Bolt’s achievement while making his article acceptable to readers.
 
At the beginning of the article, the author does not directly start to focus on his thesis statement. Instead, he has an encounter paragraph to introduce his own opinions more smoothly. The author starts his article by the argument: “He is, as far as we can tell, the fastest human who’s ever lived — in 2009, at a race in Berlin, he ran the 100-meter dash in 9.58 seconds. This translates to an average speed of just over 23 mph (with a top speed closer to 30 mph)… it’s easy to argue that Bolt has been the world’s greatest athlete of the past five years.” The author's point is that there will be someone who can break Bolt's record shortly, and then Bolt's record will be forgotten by mankind. However, since Bolt broke the world record with a time of 9.58s in Berlin in 2009, many people feel that Bolt is an undefeated figure and have accepted the fact that Bolt is the fastest human being for so long. If the author writes directly at the beginning of this article, that Bolt will soon be forgotten by people, readers will not accept his view very easily. The audience of this article is the general public, not professional sports experts. Therefore, people may think that his view is complete nonsense. In these five years, Bolt has been marking the limit of human sprinting, and many people have made Bolt the limit of human beings. Thus, the author needs this counterargument. In other words, the author is appealing to Ethos, increasing his credibility in the audience's mind. In this way, the audience can accept his thesis easily, since the author gives a common understanding at the beginning.
 
Klosterman also uses rhetorical questions and answers in describing Bolt’s amazing talents, instead of directly giving statistics of Bolt’s achievements, implicitly demonstrating the achievements of Bolt. His answers to these questions drive the readers to keep reading his article. Right after describing Bolt's running posture, the author lists a few questions: “So what would happen if an even taller man were able to move with this kind of fluidity? What if someone with Kevin Garnett’s 7-foot frame moved as naturally as Bolt does at 6-foot-5? Would this hypothetical super sprinter be able to travel 100 meters in only 33 strides? Might sprinting become dominated by sleek, long-stepping giants?” Among these rhetorical questions, the author describes Bolt's fluency and compared him with Kevin Garnett. In this case, the author does not explicitly say that someone might surpass Bolt's fluency, nor does he say that someone might use a fewer number of steps across the 100-meters. Instead, the author uses a non-existent person to compare with Bolt in terms of achievements. This shows that the author has considered Bolt's talent and achievements to be incredible in human history. His answers also let the readers continue reading his article by arousing their curiosity. His answer is: “Perhaps. But probably not.” The answer given by the author here implies that no one would surpass Bolt's record. At the same time, he added some scientific facts at the end of this passage, as to why no one will surpass Bolt's record in the future. The short answer serves as a hook, naturally guiding the readers’ minds to the explanation of his questions, and at the same time allowing the reader to continue reading to find reasons behind his answer.
 
In the last paragraph, the author expresses his concerns about the future. He says the last sentence: “But my gut feeling is that it will probably happen in our lifetime and that feeling is driven by the incentives of modern sports.” In this sentence, the author states that if mankind will encounter a limit that cannot be crossed in the future, then many people will be extremely disappointed. Recently, a robot called Deep Blue defeated the world chess master Kasparov. This is the first time that a robot beat human in a competition. Will this event symbolize the new limit of mankind is only a pill of programs and metals? Is that in the future only robots can represent the limits of humans, rather than humans using their bodies to represent their limits? If in the future, humans cannot break the record that has been set by robots. Then, what is the significance of athletics?