Comparative Essay

COMPARATIVE ESSAY –

Language Analysis

‘Animal welfare is right, and its good business too’, published in the Australian on the 2nd of June 2012, by Craig Emerson is an opinion piece about the welfare and treatment of animals. Aimed at parents, older generations and families about animal cruelty. ‘Why it’s ethical to eat meat? To set a “Good” example’, published in The New York Times on the 17th of April 2012 by Cathy Erway, questions why eating meat is right and why eating meat is wrong. Appealing to interested adolescents and older generations through a casual and informal approach.

Emerson uses imagery to get his point of view across to the reader, however the reader instantly imagines what his saying because of the depth and way he explains it. The use of imagery keeps the reader interested as he draws upon different points and opinions of the same topic about the way animals are cared for. “Chickens are crammed into cages…baby calves, so fresh from birth…are slaughtered before they’ve had the opportunity of any meaningful life.” The thought of this is disturbing to the reader and makes it easy to understand what Emerson is saying, and makes the reader re-consider if eating meat is worth the harm and pain it may cause to animals.

The article also includes logic and connotation. Emerson describes the response leading supermarkets are having to the publics changing views. “Observation of changing consumer preferences, and supermarket chains are responding. Shelf space allocated to cage eggs is shrinking, replaced by free-range.” Emerson proves that customers have a huge impact on the way animals are treated and there is a chain-like effect on the way animals ‘should’ and ‘should not’ be treated. The more people learn about the way animals are treated it is more likely that people will push to treat them fairly and humanely. Emerson also uses an attacking tone to get his point across to the reader. His attacking tone gets his point across quickly and therefore keeps the reader interested.

Unlike Emerson, Erway uses an image to create visual impact. The direct image gives the reader a clear idea on the thoughts Erway has towards meat and peoples choices for choosing and eating meat. However Erway uses a different approach to Emerson, a casual, humorous approach, instead of being blunt and straight to the point. “Eating anything – is an act of taking”, Erway refers to many things humans take from the world to survive, however when it comes to eating animals – meat – people don’t think about where the animals come from or how they are treated.
Erway also uses anecdote/ exclusive language unlike Emerson. By using exclusive language she is stating her point of view and her opinions on the topic of meat. “I don’t eat meat very often, mostly because I know that I can satisfy myself without it and wont have to carry the extra burdens of creating so much suffering.” Erway feels eating meat is a burden on her however Emerson doesn’t talk about eating meat, but the way they are treated in the lead up to being killed to become food. Where Emerson uses an attacking tone, Erway uses her point of view and personal knowledge to appeal to the reader.

Overall both articles talk about the treatment of animals. However Emerson talks about the way animals are treated before they are killed where as Erway talks about eating meat, and if we have too. Emerson’s article gives a detailed mental image of the different situations animals can be put through and if it’s worth it for meat. Erway views situations from her point of view and uses her own opinions to persuade the reader.