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 captured most readers by providing information that most readers already knew but then gave some more information on top of that which most people have not heard of. For example, we all know in zoos that animals do not have much roaming room but what we did not know was how long zoos have actually been around. In the text, the author writes, “The oldest that we know of was uncovered in 2009 during excavations in Egypt, where archeologists found evidence of a menagerie dating back to 3500 BC. Until the early 19th century, however, they were mainly representations of royal power, like Louis XIV's menagerie in Versailles. Not until modern zoos began appearing in London, Dublin, and Paris did they focus on educating and entertaining the public.”, but the author provides more and more information throughout the article that most people would never hear about. This creates the question of just because we have done it in the past is it a good idea to continue this. The article seems to present an information starting off with basic knowledge of mankind, then progresses in to a recent issue that happened and then went into the research and background knowledge. The article never seemed to lack references to modern day issues all along with having sources to back up the statements. I believe the argument is strong and very persuasive. As I agree with the article but the only issue I see is that most of the animals now in zoos are ones that were born into captivity. If we were to release the animals, they would have no way to fend, eat, and survive out in their species natural habitat. They never seen real prey because they are on a strict diet and they never had to fight for themselves to be alpha or show superior. So even though I agree that zoos are horrible and the way animals are treated is just unethical, would it be okay to shut down zoos because then what would happen to the captive animals.
ReplyDeleteThe argument made by this author is very effective because he uses many facts and statistics to support his argument about why zoos should be banned. Nolan presented statistics about zoos from all over Europe such as that 75% of elephants in the UK are overweight and that 79% of the aquarium population in Britain is being extracted. These statistics make his argument more effective because he is drawing from outside sources which have researched not just one zoo, but multiple zoos found all over Europe. This is beneficial to his argument because it proves that all zoos are a “really terrible idea” and should be shut down. The author also addresses and challenges opposing arguments which makes his argument very effective. He responds to the opposing argument that zoos are beneficial to have because of their conservation by presenting statistics that discredit this argument. This is very effective because he is not responding to opposition with his opinion but instead uses facts to disprove their arguments. Nolan presents the research information by first providing an anecdote that paints a very negative picture of zoos. He then bluntly states his stance by saying that the captivity of animals is “not something we should do.” Throughout the rest of his article he presents statistical information mainly to debunk many of the misconceptions that many people have about zoos.
ReplyDeleteWith it’s compelling introductory paragraph, this essay captivated my attention from the very beginning. Through the use of persuasive language and clear, concise facts, the author was able to make his argument against zoos a compelling one. Not only did he appeal to his audiences’ emotions, but he also appealed to both their sense of ethos and logos. The organization of his essay only served to further enhance his message. First, he made his argument against their being zoos, providing his audience with a host of facts that served to validate the points he was making. Then, he provided several counter-arguments that those in support of zoos have made. After detailing a certain pro-zoos argument, the author would then refute this argument and provide several key facts that would only serve to validate him as an author. By the end of this essay, I too was against zoos, for the powerful essay had made it impossible not to be. Not only are zoos inhumane and cruel to the animals they imprison, but the argument that zoos allow for the conservation of species as well as educational means for people lack merit, for studies and surveys prove zoos to be pretty ineffectual at both. All in all, I felt that as far as research essays go, this one was a pretty powerful one, and I will most certainly be using this for a model as I continue to draft my research essay on stem cells.
ReplyDeleteThis article captured reader's attention by providing common information and then backing it up with more facts and statistics that describe just how bad zoos are. Quite a few of the statistics that I read I didn't know before I read this article. The fact that 40% of animals born in captivity die is really appalling and outrageous. I think this article portrayed its point very well and backed it up with facts. The author described the arguments from both sides and then gave concrete facts about why the other side is wrong and explained why zoos are so terrible. This article was written in 2015, so I would be interested to see what updates could be made about the present. Are conditions in zoos any better two years later? Or are they still as bad? I also think it was good that the author used international sources because it adds to their credibility. It makes readers realize that this is not just an issue inside the United States of America, but also a problem all around the globe. I really enjoyed this article because my Mom is a huge activist for animal welfare and has taught me a lot about various ways that animals are treated poorly. I found it very interesting to learn more about conditions inside zoos. I was aware that the animals do not have nearly enough space to roam around, but I did not realize that the animals were suffering and that the conditions are so horrible. One thing about this article that caught my attention is when the officers who shot zoo animals were posing for a selfie in front of the animal, as if the animal was a trophie. I found that really insulting and angered me so much! I can not believe that people would be that cruel, but I guess this is why hunting is a sport and why so many people do it. Humans like to feel superior over animals, and I think this is the case with zoos sometimes too. People go to the zoos to feel superior over the animals and then go home with their kids and feed them chicken nuggets, not even realizing the harsh conditions that the chickens lived in that provided their children with their dinner. I enjoyed this article very much and I now have a different perspective on zoos and the living conditions of the captive animals.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very effective in its use of factual information about the harmful effects of captivity on animals in zoos. This article definitely uses a very negative tone to get its point across. It briefly mentions a few pros to zoos but I do notice that this article is very biased in its use of facts because zoos definitely do some good for injured animals and for community education. This article mainly talks about zoo failures and what all zoos are doing wrong around the globe. What really struck me is the joy the police enforcement seemed to take after shooting captive animals. Taking a selfie after shooting any living thing is no joking matter. What makes this article so credible is that Nolan uses true facts from zoos all over the world. By doing this he establishes evidence that this zoo industry is not good wherever it is. Even in a country as advanced as the US zoos are still just a bad idea in general according to Nolan. Throughout the rest of the article he really does a good job at making the reader question whether spending money for a day to see these cool animals is worth keeping these animals in poor conditions where they will never be able to live in their native habitat.
ReplyDeleteThis article is making the argument that every zoo is bad, which i don't agree with. It presents the information for why zoos are bad in an extremely grim way. Now from a social psychology standpoint, this method works because the more grim that you make something seem the more persuasive it is to people. Yes the officers who killed those animals shouldn't have taken pictures of the animals dead bodies were in the wrong, but animal hunting is not something that is new. Humans have been big game hunting for centuries and are still doing it right now. Zoos protect some of the animals from being hunted in the wild, and even though the article says that less than one percent of zoo species are part of a conservation effort, it still protects the animals from harm. Another point made in the article is that their living space is too small, which i agree with. Animals are supposed to be able to run around and hunt freely, but we cant have 5,000 square miles dedicated to a zoo in the middle of New York city. To get the most out of the animals, many of whom were already born in captivity, we have to keep their habitats small enough to fit many animals in the same place. The article does have an effective way of persuading the reader to change their opinion but it mainly focuses on the "bad apple" zoos, the ones that did something wrong and were probably reprimanded for it.
ReplyDelete