CRITICAL RESPONSE

Critical Response

Critical Response

Main Argument and Conclusions

In the article “Marine Parks” the author's main argument is that the marine parks in Australia are not only cruel towards the animals, but rather unnecessary. In the concluding few lines of the paper, the article's author suggests that all marine parks should be closed permanently. The author further adds that if the parks cannot be closed, the least we can do is make sure that no further animals are captured and transferred to our marine parks.

Critical Response/Counter Argument

The essay is well written but it is clear that the author has not pondered over all the suggested alternatives and solutions. First and foremost, the author claims that a better solution to visiting the nearby Sea World is venturing out into the wild and experiencing these animals in their natural habitat. Unfortunately, the author failed to mention that if an individual was to do so, they would require prior scuba training, have to hire a professional diver and rent a boat. This can sum up to an approximate $600 dollars in the individual is willing to purchase the scuba gear as opposed to the $20 entrance fee at a marine park (www.divinginaustralia.com.au). This can only be done if one assumes every individual that visits Sea World is a capable swimmer and can easily afford the expenses mentioned above. Secondly, when experience a wild animal in the wild, one must first be aware of how they are likely to react in their natural environment. The author should have kept in mind that one of the advantages of Sea World is that you can admire its beauty while being sure that it will not break through the aquarium wall and have you for lunch. Safety is a factor the author completely ignored. This is the first logical fallacies that are found in the article.

The second argument the author used involved research of animals. One should consider the fact that Sea World was primarily launched as a place where the general public can enjoy animals that can only be observed in the vast ocean. It was not set up as a research facility; research is nothing but an advantage of the establishment. Of course the behavioral patterns of the animals in captivity are different from those found in the wild. Why the author uses this argument to describe the inability to study how animals naturally behave is completely irrelevant and does not support the case of closing marine parks. This is the second fallacy. This seems nothing but an attempt to gather the sympathy of animal lovers. Closing a Sea World in Australia will not make much of a difference to preventing animal cruelty. What will make a difference is if organizations like Gucci and Louis Vuitton reject the use of cow hide for their numerous leather products. Just because the animal is domesticated, does not mean that it is justified to slaughter it simply for its ...