Analysis Of Argument For Ethical Zoos

Analysis of Argument for Ethical Zoos and How They Benefit Animals

Due to the recent events in the Cincinnati Zoo, arguments have been sparked about the ethics of zoos. Most articles try to argue against zoos and closed environments, but there are those that still support zoos and the programs that they provide for endangered species. The argument “Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals” focuses on the positives of animal enclosures and fights for support to keep zoos in business. The author, Dr. Robin Ganzert, ties examples about programs that zoos help create and what type of research is conducted in the zoos, to support his claims. To limit his position, he decides to refute opposing viewpoints to conclude that ethical institutions

Since the recent event with a gorilla in the Cincinnati Zoo, people have questioned ethics. The author wrote this argument to explain why the safety of animals, as well as their survival in the future, depends on these enclosures. Some readers would accept that zoos and aquariums conduct a lot of research, but for those who are skeptical, the argument discusses that the “Zoological Society of London, for instance, is developing innovative methods to assess the risks of animals contracting disease when they are reintroduced into the wild” (2016, p. 2, para. 7). The effective evidence Ganzert brings in shows readers the benefits of zoos and aquariums in order to appeal to the value of the animals being well contained and protected while they are in the enclosures. Another strong example of Ganzert’s appeal to an audience that wants the facts is “The Phoenix Zoo helped lead the ensuing breeding and reintroduction programs, which ultimately birthed more than 200 calves from just nine individuals. Now between Oman and Jordan, there are about 1,000 Arabian Oryx living in the wild” (2016, p. 2, para. 4). In result, the audience receives information about an existing program as well as what has happened due to the creation of this program at the Phoenix Zoo.

His structure most closely resembles the Rogerian structure due to him acknowledging the counterargument at the beginning and then refuting it with premises and rhetoric. Ganzert identifies the counter argument, “some critics have seized the tragedy as an opportunity to advance an uncompromising anti-captivity narrative in which all zoos and aquariums are inherently unethical and cruel” (2016, p. 1, para. 1), and gives an example of support for the counterargument when he mentions the unethical “roadside zoos”. However, in order to follow the Rogerian structure he finds a common ground when he directs his argument towards “how ethical institutions enrich and ultimately protect the lives of animals” (2016, p. 1, para. 2); the key word being “ethical”. His argument continues to follow a Rogerian structure because there is a large emphasis on the relationship between the audience and the subject. The author really tries to connect with the audience, which he does with his logical reasonings and then some emotional connections. However, his conclusion doesn’t exactly sum up any of his points or mention a counterargument again. Ganzert’s conclusion is short while he closes up his last point, restates his thesis, and then stops writing. Rogerian structures usually contain a compromise between the two sides of the argument, after restating the counterargument again. He also could have summed up