The first article is arguing that the the image of action figures is sending the wrong message to younger boys. It is influencing them to think that they have to be as bulk and muscular as these dolls are. Even those these dolls are unrealistic they are giving off the wrong impression. These younger boys often feel that they have to or need to look just like these action figures when in fact the dolls measurements are no where near precise. Boys too often develop eating and body disorders due to the image that these dolls are giving. There has been discovered many body disorders that is being contributed to these dolls. Along with time these dolls are becoming more and more unrealistic. There muscles and body image are becoming bigger and bigger. Body disturbances that boys have are being said to be a product of these action dolls. 

   The second article is arguing that action figures are just plastic toys that have no effect on the way that younger boys are perceiving themselves. It argues that boys eventually stop playing with them thus implying that they have no impact on their body images. This article sees no harm in the unrealistic body measures that these dolls take on. Kim Franke-Folstad sees no reason that one should be concerned that these action figures are portraying a bad picture for its participants. He feels that boys are always wanting to become muscular with or without the influence of action figures. He argues that these dolls have absolutely no effect on the eating and body disorders that the first article attributes them to. 

   The tone of the first article is much more professional and creditable. It does a good job at portraying ethos. The author uses many references and statistics. He also gives a whole list of references at the end of the article. He gives you many dates and years to go by so the audience gets a clearer picture. For example he gives you the details about the action figures body styles changing with the year. "It developed a new body style from 1973 to 1976 as the GI Joe Adventurer with kung-fu grip and lifelike body." He also gives you body measurements and how they would be converted to a real man's body which makes it more realistic and relatable for its audience. 

   However the tone of the second article is way more laid back and merely just rambles on. The author gives no statistics or references as to his argument. He gives his audience only his opinion to go on. He doesn't give any support for his opinions or reasons as to why he thinks that action figure dolls are just plastic and do not affect young boy's body images and how they perceive themselves. The author shows no creditability. He uses his opinion way too much and should be backing it up with some kind of facts. "For years, I've been defending Barbie against accusations that she promotes an unrealistic body image for little girls." The author should have used statistics to reinforce his opinions. 

   The assertions made in the first article were more reliable to me. They persuaded me a lot more than the second one did. Because the first article gave facts and references it was easier to relate to and was more realistic than the second article was. When i was a little girl i was really into Barbies. I played with them most of the time and could even go as far as to say a little obsessed. My parents never really told me i couldn't play with a certain toy but they were always stressing the fact that i needed to be a lady so they did influence me to play with Barbies and dolls to maybe keep me away from the more violent toys and action figures.