When saying that the animals shouldn’t be released because they will die is in my opinion an assumption or even an excuse, because they are not giving statistics, which really proofs that statement. In the article they also give an example that “Keiko – the free Willy whale” was a failure to release him, but as far as I know this whale did not die because he was released – he died because of illness. The author also gives supported arguments by naming different organizations, which gives evidence to believe him. I would wish that the author had more proof about what SeaWorld is doing in the future, or more evidence what makes it believable. The author is not using big words but he uses his language appropriate for the subject and also explains clearly what he is talking about. The author himself is not taking a point of view but he is pointing out, that SeaWorld should stop breeding whales and maybe not keeping them in captivity anymore; but he also give credit to SeaWorld because they are doing rescues for certain animals too. He wants his audience to think about the problems which already exists for example there are already more than 3000 species endangered and the world is threaten by “the sixth extinction” so the real problems are not zoos or aquariums. In conclusion, the article is well written, the author is using appropriate language and gives his audience a reason to think about the main problems in his last sentence. All in all, his article is informative and he gives both sides of the issue, but I personally miss more evidence that proofs the statement that SeaWorld stops breeding whales and take out the show from the
When saying that the animals shouldn’t be released because they will die is in my opinion an assumption or even an excuse, because they are not giving statistics, which really proofs that statement. In the article they also give an example that “Keiko – the free Willy whale” was a failure to release him, but as far as I know this whale did not die because he was released – he died because of illness. The author also gives supported arguments by naming different organizations, which gives evidence to believe him. I would wish that the author had more proof about what SeaWorld is doing in the future, or more evidence what makes it believable. The author is not using big words but he uses his language appropriate for the subject and also explains clearly what he is talking about. The author himself is not taking a point of view but he is pointing out, that SeaWorld should stop breeding whales and maybe not keeping them in captivity anymore; but he also give credit to SeaWorld because they are doing rescues for certain animals too. He wants his audience to think about the problems which already exists for example there are already more than 3000 species endangered and the world is threaten by “the sixth extinction” so the real problems are not zoos or aquariums. In conclusion, the article is well written, the author is using appropriate language and gives his audience a reason to think about the main problems in his last sentence. All in all, his article is informative and he gives both sides of the issue, but I personally miss more evidence that proofs the statement that SeaWorld stops breeding whales and take out the show from the