Rhetorical Analysis
The article “All Dog, No Bark: The Pitfalls of Devocalization Surgery,” establishes that devocalization is a negative and unnecessary surgery. It gives many alternatives to devocalization and ways that an owner can prevent a dog from barking. The article uses the process of devocalization, examples, and solutions to prove that there are no positive effects on a dog. Therefore the article accomplishes it’s goal in persuading readers to believe that devocalization is inhumane and unnecessary.
In the first paragraph the author, Anna Grossman, explains the process of debarking, it “involves removing a dog’s vocal cords with an incision made either through the mouth or the neck.” The author uses this explanation in hopes of deterring dog owners from debarking their animals. She offers a response to counter argument in saying that, while debarking may lower a dog’s voice it could take up to three surgeries to reach the volume level that is desired.____ Grossman uses example to persuade her audience through pathos. She explains …show more content…
She is a dog trainer and she suggests that if an owner has a crazy barker they can help solve this through positive reinforcement when the dog does not bark, take the dog into a quieter area where he or she would not feel the need to bark, or as a last resort, give the animal up for adoption. Grossman explains that all of these options are better than devocalization. Therefore, proving her claim that devocalization is not necessary.
In conclusion, Anna Grossman, proves her point in saying that devocalization is inhumane and unnecessary through her suggestions, examples, and explanation of the effect of it on dogs. A good argument must contain strong, well explained evidence throughout the entire essay. It is not good enough to state a claim and not have any supporting evidence behind
The article “All Dog, No Bark: The Pitfalls of Devocalization Surgery,” establishes that devocalization is a negative and unnecessary surgery. It gives many alternatives to devocalization and ways that an owner can prevent a dog from barking. The article uses the process of devocalization, examples, and solutions to prove that there are no positive effects on a dog. Therefore the article accomplishes it’s goal in persuading readers to believe that devocalization is inhumane and unnecessary.
In the first paragraph the author, Anna Grossman, explains the process of debarking, it “involves removing a dog’s vocal cords with an incision made either through the mouth or the neck.” The author uses this explanation in hopes of deterring dog owners from debarking their animals. She offers a response to counter argument in saying that, while debarking may lower a dog’s voice it could take up to three surgeries to reach the volume level that is desired.____ Grossman uses example to persuade her audience through pathos. She explains …show more content…
She is a dog trainer and she suggests that if an owner has a crazy barker they can help solve this through positive reinforcement when the dog does not bark, take the dog into a quieter area where he or she would not feel the need to bark, or as a last resort, give the animal up for adoption. Grossman explains that all of these options are better than devocalization. Therefore, proving her claim that devocalization is not necessary.
In conclusion, Anna Grossman, proves her point in saying that devocalization is inhumane and unnecessary through her suggestions, examples, and explanation of the effect of it on dogs. A good argument must contain strong, well explained evidence throughout the entire essay. It is not good enough to state a claim and not have any supporting evidence behind