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 author of this article, James Nolan, begins his topic of whether or not zoos should be banned by explaining a recent event that has happened in society regarding unjustly behavior between humans and the animals kept in cages. From the first sentence, the audience understands Nolan’s opinions of zoos are a “really terrible idea” and then provides the audience with a real-life problem to support his conclusion of wanting to ban zoos. My opinions, however, can be both agreeable and disagreeable to this article. I agree with Nolan in thee sense that zoos are a terrible environment for an animal bred to run free in a foreign country without flash photography and cages. The loud 175 million tourists a year would be cruel to any animal. So, why was the creation of zoos an idea in the first place if it means dragging living animals out of their natural habitat to be put on display? Many zoologists believe to prevent the extinction of certain animal breeds entirely that keeping them under close inspection is essential. Also, many people today would not have the proper resources to become inches away from a foreign animal to learn more about them. In addition to the preservation of the animals and the education zoos provide, parks are important to many cities’ income.
ReplyDeleteThere are organizations and regulations in place to limit the cruel and unjust behavior that many of these animals face within zoos around the world, but the damage we are causing to animals need to stop with the process of shutting down zoos.
In the Article “All the Reasons Why Zoos should be banned”, Nolan tries to persuade his audience on why he thinks zoos across the world should be shut down. His argument consists of ethos, logos, and a little of bit of pathos to back up his opinion. Nolan starts his article by telling the most recent incident of a zoo disaster in the country of Georgia, and mentions some of the horrible things being done to animals there. He quotes many experts and their studies on why zoos are harmful to animals and how they do not help conservation efforts. Logos is also used a lot in his article when he provides all of the different statistics about animals in captivity. Lastly, he uses pathos to make the reader feel bad for the animals and angry at the zoos. For the most part, he effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos, and presents his research to argue for his opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what he has to say in his article, but I think that he is ignoring some of the important work done by zoos. I also think that most of research about zoos was from ones in the United Kingdom, which is unfair to other ones around the world. Zoos in China are helping to keep the dwindling Giant Panda population from going extinct. He fails to mention any of this in his report. Nolan also fails to mention that some zoos conduct important research about animals, that has helped us to understand them better. Overall, I mostly agree with him, but I think that he should have expanded his research of zoos to include more from around the world.
In the article, “All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned”, the author starts by telling a recent tragic event with the zoo that occurred in Tbilisi. He argues all the different tragic incidents with the zoo animals and being killed so easily. He tries to grab the audience’s attention by telling horrifying incidents that have happened to zoo animals throughout the world and how their environment is very much effected living in such small areas instead of roaming the wildlife. The way he formats his article shows how against he is of having zoos open and very convincing with the information he uses to help back up his claim. He uses a bunch of different research information to help explain his reasoning. I agree with his opinion on why zoos should be banned. These animals shouldn’t be locked up in a small area that can’t allow them to wonder around and find new places to live. With the research he put into his article, it explains how most of these animals are depressed and abused by their zoo keepers. They’re killing harmless animals and these animals shouldn’t be in an area where they are going to get abused or killed for no reason. They should be living in their natural habitat with other animals of their kind. Even though zoos attract tourist, its not okay for this animals to be used for attention and instead they should be free roaming the wild.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteNolan begins by capturing the attention of readers by reminding one of the many deaths that have resulted from a flood, killing many humans and zoo animals. He then continues to describe the inhumane act of hunting these zoo animals, reminding the reader how unethical this is, especially because the zoo staff is taking photos next the dead animal. Nolan is beginning his argument by playing on the audience's emotions, which is an effective strategy when persuading an audience as nobody likes to talk about death. He then continues his argument by stating facts and statistics which would cause anybody to be alarmed, especially when describing the restricted space of the zoo animals. By bolding that the “average lion or tiger has 18,000 times less in captivity” it is evident that their life in captivity is about 18,000 worse than in the wild. This may lead his audience to question their quality of life if they were forced to live in a space 18,000 times smaller than they do now.
Nolan later brings up the opposite end of his argument stating that many people who are pro-zoo believe that zoos have progressively gotten more humane in recent years. Nolan completely contradicts this by reminding us of recent inhumane incidents such as reports of animal beatings, behavioral problems, and depression among many zoo animals. If this information was not compelling enough for Nolan to persuade you, Nolan, then reveals that many zoos are not educational and do not even provide some of the most basic information on the animal. With all these points Nolan has brought up there seems to be no reason other than to make money for zoos to be open.
The article “All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned” was a persuasive composition written by Nolan to get rid of zoos. In most advertisements, we see the zoo as a happy place for families and friends to visit during vacation. Instead, Nolan does quite the opposite by opening up with mortality statistics that build a negative imagine on the zoo. Although he does express his opinion, he sheds more light on the statistics from experts. What’s unique about Nolan’s approach is that he doesn’t put up a defensive front as he’s writing this persuasive essay. He recognizes the improvement of zoos in the last 30 years. At the same time, he presents the reality of caged animals and how even in better conditions, it’s nothing like being compared to the wild. On a more severe note, he mentions the deaths and tragedies that have followed as a consequence of the existence of zoos. I believe that his argument is effective and it makes a lot of sense. His article is really focusing on the reality behind these tourist attractions and how these animals are so much more than sights to be caged. These animals are meant to be in the wild and by supporting places like zoos, we are taking part in revoking their freedom.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned, James Nolan creates an argument of the negative impact zoos have on the animals kept in captivity. He makes his argument by giving reasons and elaborating on why zoos are bad and harmful for wildlife. Nolan He states reasons of how zoos have a positive effect, such as “the education they provide”, but then attacks that point with his argument saying “what can a person possibly learn that they can't from documentaries on YouTube?” (Nolan). This is effective because he gives positive reasons but the counteracts with that statement by turning it into a negative reasoning. He gives many different points about how zoos negatively affect wildlife, including how animals develop behavioral problems, the confined spaces they are kept in, and the shortened lifespan of animals. He really touches on the emotional aspects of the problem allowing the audience to sympathize with the animals, which makes his argument stronger because it makes people realize the negative effects of a zoo. I completely agree with the banning of zoos. Animals are meant to be free creatures, not kept in manmade captivity. Animals thrive in the wild and are not supposed to be ripped from it.
ReplyDeleteCharlize Couto
In the article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned", James Nolan is trying to convince and persuade readers why zoos are doing more harm and why they should be banned. I think the way he provided research throughout the article helped to support his claim. He provides more than enough research to persuade the reader to take his side. He makes a strong argument when he adds information about how people say that zoos do a lot of conservations work but in reality, it's a very small percentage. It was effective of him to show all the different times that zoos all around the world have ended up killing rather than saving animals. I have always thought that zoos weren't the best, but I have never really researched why exactly. After reading this article I one hundred percent side with the author because that is all horrific what the zoos are doing to these animals. It really is sad that the animals are taken from such a large open space where they are comfortable and have a free life, to trapping them inside tiny spaces that are thousands of times smaller than what they should be living in. It also shows you how bad the zoos are when it says that the animals normally die at a much younger age in captivity. These zoos are nothing but jail cells for the animals. It was said that 40% of lion cubs die in zoo captivity. The rate for them dying in the wild was 30% but that is due to predators, which there are none of in zoos so that really shows the negative effects the zoos have on animals.
ReplyDeleteKristin Piotrowski
In this article "All the Reasons why Zoos should be banned," James Nolan, the author, tries to persuade the audience that zoos should not exist. He begins this article describing an event that has recently taken place between animals in a zoo and humans. He uses pathos in order to get the readers attached and on his side by talking about a horrific event that took place in Tbilisi in which animals and people were killed due to a flood near the zoo. As well as using pathos, Nolan also uses logos to get his point across. He gives many facts about zoos that make the readers believe zoos shouldn't exist. He tells us exactly how much space the animals are losing, how many of them are unhealthy, and how many of them are dying early, all due to being in captivity. I think Nolan gets his point across very well and makes a very strong argument in regards to zoos no longer existing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nolan in the sense that zoos should be banned. I think it is unnecessarily cruel that these animals are living as showcases to thousands and thousands of people and are being held in captivity their whole lives. I think these animals deserve to be free and to be in nature where they long. On the other hand, I don't think zoos only cause harm. I think that zoologists are able to study these animals and conduct research on them to have a better understanding of animals in general. I do believe there are other ways to conduct this research though, rather than keeping these animals in captivity just to create a tourist attraction.
In the article, “All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned” by James Nolan, the main goal is to persuade the audience about the reasons as to why zoos should be banned and why they truly are a terrible idea. He uses different scenarios that allow the audience to understand what these zoos are doing that is causing harm to the animals. These animals are being killed in situations that are inhumane and are being killed way too easily. By telling these stories, which shows the amount of prior research and knowledge he has on this topic of discussion, the article seems very legit and convincing. Personally, one of my favorite animals is an elephant. I find them very unique and interesting. Reading about the behavioral problems that they develop throughout their years in the zoo, including boredom of confinement which progresses to excessive licking, self-mutilation, and trunk-swinging is very upsetting. I always knew that although zoos attracted tourists and made a lot of money, they were unethical. I completely agree with Nolan with respect that that zoos should be banned due to the harm that these animals are going through. They deserve to live in their natural habitats and be surrounded by the environment they are supposed to live in. being trapped and constantly on surveillance is not the proper life these animals should be living.
ReplyDeleteThe article “All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned” by James Nolan is trying to let people know why zoos should not exist. This topic actually has been more open and discussed, and people are more aware of what is going on in the zoos. Nolan starts off with the article by saying how someone was “killed by an escaped tiger” because of a flood in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. It is heard that police have been shooting many of these animals. Even though there is a lot of negativity toward this article, I agree with Nolan because the information and what exactly is going on in these zoos are accurate. How are you raising wild animals in such little, compact spaces and thinking that is okay, so zoos can earn money? These animals should be out and open in the wild. Instances such as animals hurting or even killing people/workers at the zoo is explainable because these animals are so frustrated. Nolan definitely knows what he is talking about. You can feel the emotion behind his voice with the intense, strong energy as well. He is passionate for these animals and want rights for them. Animals are not “just animals” and clearly, Nolan speaks up about that.
ReplyDeleteGloria Chae
In the article, "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned" by James Nolan, the author first starts off by saying that he is not an expert by an amateur in the subject and that he is just stating facts. By doing this, he establishes no bias due to hi using only facts and citing references to experts within the field. The article starts by talking about a recent flood in Georgian capital of Tbilisi, and talks about how the police department false stated that the zoo animals were either dead or captured and stirred up controversy within the capital. After the anecdote, the author starts stating facts on how many animals aren’t healthy in a zoo, how more likely they are dying due to captivity. All interesting facts that draw people in to agree that we need to ban zoos. Nolan uses an extensive amount of logos, which is very effective. I believe that Logos is the most effective type of rhetoric which the author uses very well. Personally, I believe that every single zoo should be banned. There are no reason why wild animals should be kept in captivity, specially the exotic ones. The zoo is not a safe place for wild animals, all animals should be left in the wild where they belong.
ReplyDeleteAlonso Mendoza
In the article, James Nolan talks about the atrocities going on in modern day zoos. To grab the reader's attention, he applies logos and pathos to his argument. Towards the middle of his article, Nolan spews out statistics, such as how many times less space lions have in captivity, and what percent of elephants are unhealthy due to zoo treatment, to show just how detrimental zoos are to not only the animals involved but the whole entire species. These statistics put everything into perspective and make us realize the damage we're causing. Further, Nolan applies pathos to strengthen his argument. In the second paragraph, he talks about how the animal deaths during the flood in Tbilisi could have been avoided. This makes readers rethink the idea of zoos, as death is a sensitive topic for every human, and knowing it could have been prevented makes it that much harder. In terms of which strategy is most effective, I would have to say his use of logos. This is because he presents more facts and statistics in his work than he does emotion. I found personally that using these facts shocked me, and encouraged me more than I already had to detest zoos.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "All the Reasons Why Zoos should be banned," the author, James Nolan, begins his claim whether or not zoos should be banned across the world. He backs up his claim by describing and explaining an event that shows how cruel humans treat caged animals recently in zoos. Nolan makes his argument clear from the very beginning that he strongly disagrees with the institution of zoos. He gives the audience a problem and he want others to support his conclusion by banning all zoos. It is somewhat effective because he uses ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade the reader to support him. He uses pathos to show the reader that we are mistreating animals by keeping them in cages and that we need to care for animals, not keep them locked up. He uses ethos by hinting that it is not ethical to keep animals in cages and expose them to camera flashes and loud tourists. Then he uses logos to give the solution to the zoo problem, ban them. He thinks it is logical that he can criticize all zoos by the misbehavior of a handful and conclude that all of them should be banned. I agree and disagree with the author. I agree in the sense that animals should not be locked up in cages and do not deserve to be dragged out of their natural environment to be put behind bars and be shown off. I also disagree with the author because he does not talk about how beneficial some zoos and aquariums are in their own community. Nolan is very one sided and does not take into account the good that comes out of zoos and aquariums.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Dorsey
In the article, “All the reasons why zoos should be banned,” author James Nolan, speaks straight facts about zoos in general. He starts off by stating that he’s not an animal rights activist but in fact, someone that only cares about facts. The way that Nolan argues is strictly by stating facts and not beating around the bush in any way, he hits his audience with facts. The way he writes his argument is very effective in my opinion because he’s very descriptive in what he write and does it well. In his argument he doesn’t just use facts but also statistics, there are numbers and percentages, which is effective because numbers don’t lie. Also, he puts his emotions aside and is very direct on showing the evidence and then in the finally paragraph he tells people that we should wake up and stop being so ignorant. I completely agree with James Nolan and even more so now since he has shown me some of the statistics behind it. One thing that caught my attention is the fact that 40% of cubs die in cages while 30% die in the wild, and the fact that there are no predators in a Zoo is which makes this statistic crazy.
ReplyDeleteDiego Mendoza
At the beginning of the article, James Nolan references a recent tragedy in Tbilisi, Georgia where a flood killed 19 people but also caused major harm to the zoo. The zoo’s inhabitants where either killed or escaped from the zoo, to only get shot by officials. After being shot, many of the animals were photographed in selfies in a cruel manner, acting as a trophy. After this insert, he goes on to talk about the history of zoos and that although zoo safety has made some improvement, it is not enough to justify the continued use of zoos and the issues that are caused by them towards animals.
ReplyDeleteHis use of real life examples helps establish that this is a real issue and is serious. The continued history after the story and other facts that help encourage the point that zoos are harmful to animals and are not fair is extremely effective in creating a strong argument against zoos. This genre is an persuasive essay expressing an opinion against zoos. I agree that zoos are bad and should be limited because of the damage they can do to animals and how they can be inhumane towards the animals in captivity.
The article "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned" by James Nolan is a very factual piece that puts up a very smart argument to why zoo's should be banned. He brings up many points about the bad effects of zoos, and provides facts and statistics to back it up. The author obviously is siding with zoo's being banned, but through his statistical based opinion he has power in the article to sway someones opinion. He sure did that to my opinion. After reading the article I agree too that zoos should be banned globally. It prohibits animals to keep reproducing in their habitat. A point that I think could have been researched and analyzed is the money spent on zoos total. With all of the money they spend and make, there could be serious changes to the living atmospheres in the wild for animals, rather than sending them to a zoo. There is real damage being caused, and there should definitely be a fix to it soon
ReplyDeleteJames Nolan, the author of this article, conveys a persuasive argument that zoos should be banned. He utilizes the three rhetorical appeals, to convince his audience that the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to zoos. Nolan uses pathos to appeal to the audience's emotions by bringing humor into such a dark matter. For instance, his diction provides the audience with a hint of his personality while still addressing the topic at hand. Also, he incorporates pictures of animals in captivity and describes their distress which makes the audience feel bad. Nolan uses ethos by beginning his research essay with an anecdote about a flood in Tbilisi, Georgia that killed people and zoo animals. He veers away from the obvious tragedy of human loss and focuses on the loss of those animals because it is "more avoidable." This applies ethics to his essay because he is trying to show the audience that keeping animals in captivity is wrong. Moreover, Nolan uses pathos by providing various statistics that work as evidence that zoos should be banned.
ReplyDeleteNolan's argument is effective because he employs credible sources and successfully conveys his beliefs. Also, he includes counterarguments, but still discredits those ideas which makes his argument stronger. I liked how he disclosed from the start that he is not a "big animal-rights crusader," because it sets up readers for an engaging persuasive experience from someone similar to them. I agree with Nolan completely that zoos should be banned because the cons he reviewed overpower the pros of maintaining zoos worldwide. As he said, people need to open their eyes and realize that humans are the cause to such calamity.
Lauren Gordon
In this article, author James Nolan discusses why he feels zoos should be banned. In order to support his argument, he used many factual points from many different cases throughout the world. He referenced several specific facts that supported his argument that zoos should be banned. He discussed how the percentage of lion cubs that die in zoos is actually greater than in the wild. He also discusses that elephants typically live to be on average 3 times older in the wild than in captivity. This article is effective because those facts show that zoos do not serve animals any benefits compared to living in the wild. He also discussed that animals in zoos have weird behavior patterns compared to those in the wild. All of these arguments are astonishing to hear and as the reader they grab your attention and make you think whether or not zoos are ethical. I personally agree with the argument being made that zoos should be banned. Animals should live in the wild and being held captive in a zoo impacts them negatively in many ways such as shortening their life spans and affecting their behavior.
ReplyDeleteBeginning with a brief summary of flood that resulted in the deaths of humans and zoo animals alike, James Nolan suggests that human tragedy appears avoidable in some aspect regarding natural disasters, whereas the deaths of these wild animals are certainly preventable. The author introduces the main issue of keeping animals in captivity, briefly touches upon the positives, then shifts into the body of the argument. Nolan addresses the general positive aspects of zoos and how they began being used to educate the public on the animals, improvements regarding cages being replaced with glass, full veterinary treatment, and more humane treatment overall. The author then provides hard facts from governmental organizations that elaborate on the harm zoos are inflicting on the animals they harbor, such as the adverse effects of keeping wild animals in captivity which brings upon negative psychological effects. The author brings to the surface common arguments in the favor of zoos but them proceeds to counter them with facts and figures. Nolan concludes by calling zoos a smaller part of a bigger problem - how we relate to our natural environment. The final paragraph is a powerful call for action from the author to people and leaves the reader to ponder the necessity of zoos.
ReplyDeleteCharlene Forti
James Nolan starts off his article with a descriptive summary of a flood that had killed both humans and animals and also caused the release of other animals into the community. Then states that cops had killed some of the remaining animals that had escaped and took selfies with the dead bodies as if they were trophies. First, that is disgusting and really says something about the human race. Second, these tragedies could have been easily avoided if zoos were not around. As a kid, I loved zoos because I got to see animals that I normally wouldn't see in my community, however, in recent years it has came to my realization that zoos are basically prisons for wild, exotic animals. Even though Nolan does give some facts on how zoos are improving their methods of handling and captivating animals, keeping the animals in captivity is killing them. Whether it be from stress, not enough space, the surrounding environment, these animals are more in danger when they are in zoos compared to being in the wild. Animals are just as consciously aware as humans are so put yourself in the places of these animals, how would you feel? The last couple of paragraphs should open the eyes of people who still don't see the harm that zoos actually cause animals. Hopefully Nolan's article spreads throughout the web and receives more attention and hopefully changes will be made.
ReplyDeleteAlex Pedraja
This article by James Nolan begins with many details on a flood killing 19 people at a zoo. 6 people are still missing to this day. Another problem with this flood caused many animals to escape the zoo and some of the tigers started killing people. The author brings this point up to show how these carnivore hungry animals are a danger to society and should be removed. The author talks about his opinion a lot and how he believes that wild animals should not be captured for human entertainment. He mentions the amount of people that are attracted to zoos every year and the number is almost 200 million. The author talks about the history of zoos and how they used to show royal power. Personally, I do not see how the history of zoos is relevant be he discusses them anyway. He then leads on to the point that these wild animals are kept in captivity and can’t roam around like they do in the wild trying to persuade the reader into thinking it is wrong. He also talks about the abuse of animals and how world wide reporting’s have been made showing how people mistreat these animals.
ReplyDelete