The initial premise of the article is that the purely amateur and athletic spirit of the Olympic games has been killed through economic materialism and political nationalism. The author breaks down the historical dialectic of the Olympic Games, something that he sees as a steady devolution that is moving away from the original intent of the Olympics. The conclusion is a hopeful attempt to provide a closing that can provide "the answer" to such a situation. This is something that the author believes can be done through an appeal to the "ethos" of the athletes, who he feels can assert their own will to provide a sense of authentic spirit of competition that will reinstate the spirit of amateur athletic participation to the games. The author makes this appeal in a vague manner, somehow indicating that if athletes and audience demand it, the situation can change. Such an ending is problematic. If the problems of the Olympics are so deeply embedded in history and economics, then it seems unlikely that a vague "call to ethos" can reverse such deeply profound inertia forces. I think that this is where the ending is a challenge. In a way, the author has set himself up for fundamental difficulty. In outlining in meticulous detail the problem, a solution must be equally rigorous and not steeped in vagueness. It is here where I think that ending to the writing sample might not contain all of the strength the rest of it does.