I gave it a shot.
The argument presented is extremely ineffective because itâs written as if itâs from the perspective of a child. The argument doesnât even seem to state a claim, instead it poses a question âwhy do people want to ban the ownership of pets?â The writer could have easily improved their introduction by making a statement such as âthe banning of pet ownership would be a violation of our free willâ even something simple like âbanning pet ownership would be badâ would be a better introduction then this. The writer follows up with an insufficient and frankly irrelevant list of supporting evidence, all of which is completely opinion based with some emotional appeal and small anecdotes sprinkled through out. Their first piece of supporting evidence is they love animals âthe first reason I should be able to own a pet is that I love animalsâ the writer fails to bring a relevant and credible reason to back up their âclaimâ or rather their argument, they follow up with a personal anecdote as well as a quote from the writers mother stating the following âI donât know what I would do without my little Josie!â. All of the writers supporting evidence is useless and irrelevant, an improvement that can be made while rather obvious is actually bringing credible evidence and reasons to the argument for example, the writer could have brought up that some people need to have service animals, people such as veterans and those with anxiety problems they also couldâve found articles on this very topic and used the evidence/reasoning found inside. As for the paragraph it self it seems to be very poorly put together, thereâs essentially no transitions whatsoever letting the paragraph go from one point to the other without any notice for example as the writer finished their quote from their mother they simply cut off the sentence and move on with a brand new point. One way they couldâve improved is by filling any awkward spaces that leave out a clear ending to a point, for example instead of ending on a quote and moving on they could have ended the quote and wrote something to end it off such as a rhetorical question hereâs an example of that âas you can see, my mother knows better than anyone how important animals are to me so I suppose the question is how important are they to you?â This leaves the reader to ponder and consider the argument presented. The over perspective of the writer is strange, they present everything from in an emotional light, most likely in an effort to appeal to the readers feelings, they could have done a better job at presenting it however, if they had just balanced logic and emotion or relied on solely logic the paragraph couldâve been effective. To end it off, letâs review the conclusion clincher, âhonestly, what we do without our pets?â Now this conclusion clincher isnât necessarily bad, in fact itâs a pretty good ending question for the argument, the problem lies in, once again the paragraph it self. If the reader had been given relevant reliable info then the conclusion clincher couldâve been effective they also couldâve extended it a short amount, like leading in with a sentence such as âin conclusion pets can be practical, low maintenance companions, showing traits of intelligence and care, both of which some people could use, so ask your self, honestly what we do without our petsâ. To end it off, the writer presented a horrible argument with ineffective evidence and reasoning that down played the only good aspects it had.
