The author’s main purpose about defending the rights of the animals is that they are living creatures. His strong claim determines that researchers are finding animals are more like humans than we ever realized. However, defying by Rifkin’s statement’s and the reason he points out the connection is because us people have not really payed attention to be able to realize the similarity.
Animals pass on learning or skills to their young ones which goes the same exact way with humans, most likely why many children look up to or choose to follow their parents footsteps.
On the contrary, an author appeals more to the audience by backing up his point with facts and that is just what Rifkin did throughout the article. He used logos as a form of logic by using reasons that supported his claim. “Studies on pigs’ social behavior funded by McDonald’s at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other” (Rifkin 33).
I do agree with Rifkin because as he says, “Many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined?” ( ). I agree with this author not only with his claim, but also by the way that he uses diction and his style of language.
What makes the author even more credible is his historical background. By doing research, I learned that …show more content…
In the article “A change of heart about animals”, Rifkin implies rhetorical questions in order to make an effect on his point rather than to get an answer. Although, adding on these questions supported the author’s use of knowledge by leaving it to the readers to do the thinking to themselves and whether they change their outlook on animals. For example, “And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments?” (Rifkin
Animals pass on learning or skills to their young ones which goes the same exact way with humans, most likely why many children look up to or choose to follow their parents footsteps.
On the contrary, an author appeals more to the audience by backing up his point with facts and that is just what Rifkin did throughout the article. He used logos as a form of logic by using reasons that supported his claim. “Studies on pigs’ social behavior funded by McDonald’s at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other” (Rifkin 33).
I do agree with Rifkin because as he says, “Many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined?” ( ). I agree with this author not only with his claim, but also by the way that he uses diction and his style of language.
What makes the author even more credible is his historical background. By doing research, I learned that …show more content…
In the article “A change of heart about animals”, Rifkin implies rhetorical questions in order to make an effect on his point rather than to get an answer. Although, adding on these questions supported the author’s use of knowledge by leaving it to the readers to do the thinking to themselves and whether they change their outlook on animals. For example, “And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments?” (Rifkin