Answer:
The principal is very skeptical about this decision because if the decision she makes is athlete, he will make a speech about physical aspects, most likely, and if the choice is the scientist, then he will talk about science and academic aspects, probably. Both of these are excellent, but if the speech is about both, the athlete will be more reliable. And if the students are not very good at studies, the scientist is better, speaking he can teach a lot more than the athlete, who can do both pretty good. So, the choice is difficult.
First and foremost, an official athlete will teach the school about work ethics like dedication which is good for both grades and physical stuff. But, sadly, it will be targeted at physical aspects and might be slightly poor. However, the athlete can teach the students so very well that they excel. So, the athlete is an excellent choice.
The scientist is better academically, but not in the field of hard work. The athlete is better at that field. But, the scientist can teach them a little about the EDP, which relates to work ethics more specifically. It also talks about the importance of determination, which is a key concept in hard work. The question remains: which should the principal invite?
The principal should invite the athlete because he has more experience in hard work and is less of the office and science sort of work style. The athlete also doesn't go to a job and sit down for eight hours, and therefore knows more about hard work. The scientist would be more helpful for stuff like determination or patience, more of which show up in scientific occupations of study.
The principal had a tricky decision, but now she knows the answer to it, athlete! The scientist is great, but in this case, the athlete is better. We have seen each in their respected career and evaluated what they will most likely teach, and finally chose the best option.