All three of these sources have some similarities and differences. The controversy between these three sources ask that should animals be used for entertainment purposes? “The Use of Animals in Entertainment” and “Should Animals Be Used as Entertainment?” both show that animals should not be used as entertainment while “Jump to It!” believes that animals should be used for entertainment.
Among these sources, all show the use of rhetorical devices. One similarity is in “Jump to It!”, the author has a constant use of ethos. According to “Jump to It!”, “We’ll jump frogs about 4,000 times, about a thousand a day, says Laurie Giannini, an organizer of the Calaveras County event.” The author used an expert quote to make their side stronger. Also …show more content…
One difference is that the claim of source three was the strongest argument. This is because the author made comments that were reasonable and credible since their was an interview of the people who have experienced the animal cruelty along with a strong use of pathos to make the reader feel sympathy for the animals. According to “Should Animals Be Used as Entertainment?”, “If people would just put themselves in the skins of the animals and think about being confined and forced to do unnatural things…” The author used the words “confined”, “unnatural”, and “forced” as feelings of how the animals are treated and how they feel. Source one, “The Use of Animals in Entertainment” wasn’t as strong as the other sources. It didn’t use ethos to try strengthening their side of the controversy. “The Use of Animals as Entertainment” really used only pathos and logos to make the reader feel emotion for the animals and for the reader to see a date for which the Animal Asia exposed a place for making animals fight and hurt each other. Thirdly, “Jump to It!” didn’t really use pathos to try and convince the reader that it was necessary to feel sorry for the animals. The author mostly used ethos and logos. A second difference is that while source one, “The Use of Animals in Entertainment” and source three, “Should Animals Be Used as Entertainment” had a more valid response of the topic while source two, “Jump to It!” barely had facts or reasoning to back up their
Among these sources, all show the use of rhetorical devices. One similarity is in “Jump to It!”, the author has a constant use of ethos. According to “Jump to It!”, “We’ll jump frogs about 4,000 times, about a thousand a day, says Laurie Giannini, an organizer of the Calaveras County event.” The author used an expert quote to make their side stronger. Also …show more content…
One difference is that the claim of source three was the strongest argument. This is because the author made comments that were reasonable and credible since their was an interview of the people who have experienced the animal cruelty along with a strong use of pathos to make the reader feel sympathy for the animals. According to “Should Animals Be Used as Entertainment?”, “If people would just put themselves in the skins of the animals and think about being confined and forced to do unnatural things…” The author used the words “confined”, “unnatural”, and “forced” as feelings of how the animals are treated and how they feel. Source one, “The Use of Animals in Entertainment” wasn’t as strong as the other sources. It didn’t use ethos to try strengthening their side of the controversy. “The Use of Animals as Entertainment” really used only pathos and logos to make the reader feel emotion for the animals and for the reader to see a date for which the Animal Asia exposed a place for making animals fight and hurt each other. Thirdly, “Jump to It!” didn’t really use pathos to try and convince the reader that it was necessary to feel sorry for the animals. The author mostly used ethos and logos. A second difference is that while source one, “The Use of Animals in Entertainment” and source three, “Should Animals Be Used as Entertainment” had a more valid response of the topic while source two, “Jump to It!” barely had facts or reasoning to back up their