In your post, you should first and foremost reflect on the way it is synthesizing and presenting research and information. How does it make an argument, is it effective? After addressing the genre of this piece as a research essay, you can feel free to respond holistically to the content: do you agree/disagree and why?
Your response should be no less than 200 words. You do not need to comment on a peers' post, but you most certainly can.
Here is the link again:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/why-we-should-close-all-zoos-778
The Article “All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned” was an argumentative essay. It was persuading the readers to side with banning zoos (clearly can tell that from the title). The arguments used during it made sense and I actually believed them because of the reliable sources used and the use of statistics and facts throughout it. I personally, agree with the article but that might not be due just to the article since it was already a formed opinion of mine prior to reading it. The structure of the article made it easy to identify important pieces and where to find the citations. They bolded and underlined those important words which was an important part of the article in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe author appeals to reader’s emotions (pathos) and uses drastic facts and wordings when choosing to describe the zoo “It is like a jail cell”; or even when giving statistics about animals’ deaths due to zoos. Overall, the author knows how to persuade the public due to the literary devices used in the article. He is obviously biased by his own values and morals, but so are most of the persuasion essays. Although I already agreed before, I learned more information on it through his article.
The article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned" is an argumentative essay. Just from reading the title, the reader can tell that the author is trying to persuade the reader that zoos should be banned. Throughout the article, there are many underlined words and dates. The author used there underlines phrases as citation, when the reader click on the underlined phrase, the reader is taken to the website where the information came from. The article made many clear and factual arguments that supported the title. For example, the article explains different instances in which innocent zoo animals were killed or mistreated by workers of the zoo. The article then states that the percent of animals dying in captivity is higher than those in the wild, their natural habitat. In addition, the author of the article uses to pathos in order to appeal to the sensitive side of the readers who feel bad for the harm being inflicted on captures animals.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with the article. Animals seen in zoos are born in the wild, that is their natural habitat, they shouldn't be forced to live in small areas and be treated poorly. Lastly, many animals seen in zoos are large and dangerous, if they somehow escaped, either humans or animals will lose their lives. If zoos didn't attract over 175 million visitors per year, I believe they would already be shut down.
In this article “All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned” is an essay to try and persuade the reader to not support zoos. The essay is almost entirely against zoos and why they are harmful to the animals and how it also effects their species. The information presented is very straight forward and to the point. Most of the facts are from news reports and statistics from reliable sources. This is a very effective way to present an argument. With data and facts with flashy news articles most of the people who read vice will believe it. That said all of the facts can be seen as a bit repetitive bringing up death and unhealthy statistics. The author though does do a good job at spreading out these facts so that it’s not too repetitive. In my own opinion, I support this article. I believe that people are having a negative impact on other species and zoos can be a leading cause. Also, personally it saddens me to see animals not treated properly and zoos don’t do that good of a job at educating either. This article really opened my eyes to things I’ve never seen and how much zoos do negatively because whenever I go to a zoo they always make themselves seem like they are saving the animals. Now I see the other side of the argument.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned", James Nolan argues against zoos. The author presents in the title, and throughout the article, that he believes that zoos should be banned. Nolan uses examples from various sources in order to persuade his audience. These sources help to make his article more ethical and effective. The authors use of logos and pathos also help to make his article more effective. He uses percentages and dates in order to show how zoos are bad. He uses pathos in order to appeal to his audience's emotions and convince them to take his side by making them feel bad. I believe that he successfully uses the rhetorical appeals in his research essay. The author ends his article by stating an example of a place that has already begun to shut down zoos, to show how helpful it will be.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Nolan's article, I learned a lot about the terrible things that zoos have done to animals. There are a lot of statistics and reasoning to why zoos should be banned. I do not believe that all zoos should be banned because some do help animals that have been hurt, but I do believe that the animals living in them should be treated better.
In the article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned," the author, James Nolan, writes an essay against zoos and everything about them. The author is persuading the readers to believe him and side with his ideas. The essay is well formatted and descriptive. He uses examples as to why it is dangerous to keep the animals in a closed area which is a strong point to make. The downfall of Nolan's essay is that he only discusses the negative aspects of the zoos and not the educational purposes or the environment of the zoos. Nolan only keeps saying that all zoos should be banned, not knowing how every zoo runs their programs and works. The whole essay is, just as the title says, "all the reasons why zoos should be banned." While he does describe great examples as to why it is bad to contain animals to such a small space for the rest of their lives, he is closing off his argument when he says "all zoos." Some zoos, while still holding animals, only have the animals because they are rescued and are only there until restored back to health and then released. If all zoos were banned, then these animals would not be helped. Zoos also serve as educational purposes and teach young children and adults many things about different animals. Not all of the zoos animals are taken from their wild homes and put in to be observed. Nolan's weakness is that he does not share any of these examples. My personal beliefs on the subject is half and half. I believe that animals in need of help should be given that help ad released again. Many aquariums have this set up and it saves many animals while serving educational purposes while the animals are there.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "All the reasons Zoos Should be Banned" James Nolan who is the author of the article argues against Zoos and what the zoos are about. James wants to persuade the readers that zoos are bad and people should stop supporting them. James does a great job talking about how keeping animals in captivity is bad for the animals. Personally, i do not agree with James because i think zoos are pretty good. I understand what James is trying to say but going to zoos was a big part of my childhood and I'm sure it made a lot of other children's childhoods different too. I think if James talked about the positive parts of zoos the article would be much more credible and not so bias. He could've talked about how the zoos take in injured animals and take care of them and help the recover, or how zoos use the animals for research.
ReplyDeleteThe article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should be Banned", written by James Nolan, outlines his issues with zoos and why he believes they are inhumane. It is obvious that the written has a strong opinion on the issue and fails to effetely understand and counter the opposite argument to his claim. With that being said, his arguments towards why zoos are bad are very strong. He also pulled information from multiple sources which enhanced the detail throughout his essay. The writer also uses statistics and facts to back up this claim. This is essential in persuasive writing because it provides real life examples that back up your claim. When these stats are provided, the readers are much less likely to question the legitimacy of your claims becuase they can visualize the evidence. Personally, I agree with the stance the article takes. Animals should not be held against their will for profits. I understand that many zoos help nurture animals and release them back into the wild for their benifit, but many of them don't. I do agree that the ones who help animals should not be shut down, but the zoos that take advantage of animals should be shut down.
ReplyDelete“All The Reasons Zoos Should Be Banned” is an argumentative essay that attempts to persuade the reader into agreeing that zoos should be banned. In doing this, the writer used reliable sources and many facts which made his stance hard to argue with. I fully agree with the article in believing that there shouldn’t be zoos. Locking up animals in cages for us to look at is cruel and morally wrong. I believe that the only ways wild animals should be observed is in their natural habitat for two reasons. The first being that is when they are at their normal state. Watching an animal depressed and tired in a zoo is nowhere near the same as seeing an animal living the life it is meant to live. Secondly, I believe that animal captivity, in any form, is wrong. However, I believed this before I read this article so that may have something to do with why I believed it to be so well written. It is much easier to appreciate an argument that you agree with rather than one of the opposing perspective. Either way, I enjoyed the article and felt that it is something all zoo goers should take a look in order to understand the depressing life of these caged animals.
ReplyDeleteThe article, "All The Reasons Zoos Should Be Banned" begins with an anecdote that synthesizes the dangerous outcomes and threat the zoo possessed towards civilians as a result of a flood which allowed animals to escape. This anecdote stirs fear and worry into the reader and successfully began the argument using pathos. The article then goes into discussing factual evidence that proves zoos to be habitats which do not offer merely enough nor meet adequate standards of life towards the animals. These few paragraphs are examples of logos which display factual evidence and reasonable analysis of the issue. The article then refutes many ideas and statements supporting zoos which strengthen their argument. This argument is extremely effective because it not only touches the reader on a personal level to inform him/her of the dangers executed onto the animals, but the article also explains in great detail factual evidence towards animal safety, space, breeding, stress, etc. I personally think zoos are extremely inappropriate towards animals as well as purposeless. I understand the animals are beautiful, yet they should not be held captive as prisoners for the entertainment of civilians, especially under the torturous circumstances in which they exist under.
ReplyDeleteJames Nolan in his Vice article argues against the practice of Zoos. Mr. Nolan is trying to get people to side with him against zoos, due to their mistreatment of animals. Nolan does this in a typical argumentative essay way, he brings up a point for the continued use of zoos and then breaks it down with counter arguments. For example, he brings up the point that zoos have improved over the past 30 years due to the removal of cages, increased sanctuary size, and ethical treatment of animals. He then refutes the points he just made, he states that although there have been improvements its no were near enough, he brings up points such as Lions have 18,000 times less space in captivity and reports of animal abuse still happening. Mr. Nolan also uses Logos in his essay, he states “I'm no big animal-rights crusader, but I do have some basic common sense”, he uses this so that the reader can side with him as most of us can relate to that sentence. He then states his common sense makes him think that animals in captivity is a bad idea. His essay serves its point, it convinces readers that Zoos should be shut down, however, I don’t think Mr. Nolan wrote enough on the solution to the problem of Zoos he only wrote about the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article presents the argument in a very clear manner.His argument is that we should ban Zoo's. At first he presents a current situation that had something to do with his argument. Through this example you can see the things the author is going to talk about. For example, the author talked about the amount of animals killed at the zoo in the natural disaster and by humans. Then later on in the document he talked about the amount of animals Europe kills per year. What makes this argument strong to me is the fact that the author mentions some of the positives that zoos have as well. When he mentions the positives he comes back with a good counter argument. For me, I am on the same page as the author. I am not a huge animal rights activist but i do see the need to get ride of zoos. My biggest problem with zoos is the amount of space it take away from these animals when compared to there natural habitats.
ReplyDeleteThe article "All The Reasons Zoos Should Be Banned," is an argumentative piece stating many of the issues and reasons why the author believes zoos are wrong. The author begins the article by discussing a flood in the capital of Georgia (country) and how the damages were worse because of a nearby zoo. The flood caused many animals to escape and eventually kill a civilian. The author chooses to introduce his argument with an attention grabber rather than the most important reason. He then, throughout the article, provides more specific and statistical information on many of the negative outcomes caused by zoos. When the author goes into more detail, he also addresses many common misconceptions of positives about zoos, which he validates with data. He relies heavily on numbers to show the significance of the waste of money spent on zoos. Another main technique the author employs is pathos as he discusses the mental health issues of the animals caused by being in zoos. Overall the author effectively argues his point through many different techniques which makes it hard for the reader to not agree. I personally do agree with the article because even though I did not have much of an opinion on the topic before, the author effectively convinced me that zoos are wrong and there is a need for change.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author begins with a somber yet captivating story about a flood occurring in Georgia causing the release of all the animals being kept in a nearby Zoo. Animals whose natural habitat is in the wild, free of captivity and being on display. Using this as an opener to his article, he is able to draw the audience in with pathos and then begins to introduce his evidence and theories on the negative aspects of zoos and why it should come to a stop. Using statistical evidence to show the deficit caused from holding animals in captivity for purposes of entertainment to the public he chastises and calls for change. In addition he also goes into detail discussing the effects captivity has on animals' mental health, recounting many instances of abuse that still go on today. By appealing to pathos, ethos and logos, the author effectively states his claim. Although I already was in agreement with the main argument of his article, there was a lot of new information that was brought to light which only strengthened my knowledge and stance on the matter.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned" author James Nolan recounts the devastating flood that occured in Tbilisi that left several zoo animals dead and displaced and one man killed by a tiger. Following these recountment, Nolan preceded to list this history of zoos and why they should no longer exist. Using statistics gathered among several sources, he argues that zoos are outdated and doing more harm to animals than good. I personally was previously aware about the cruelty zoos placed upon animals, whether intentional or not (ex. seaworld being intentionally neglectful and abusive to their wards. Even Lowry Park zoo in Tampa treats unhealthy animals, their care and living conditions are also not up to the highest standard, and the animals suffer) and agreed with the author on his argument. In previous centuries, humans were put on display in human zoos, often POC for the amusement of white people. It was not acceptable to treat people this way, so why should we wish it on animals?
ReplyDelete