Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? A zoo has no useful purpose at all. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. |
I believe that a zoo has no useful purpose at all. Furthermore, I strongly believe that people should not confine animals in a jail-like surroundings as a place like 'zoo.'' I want to ask to all zoo directors in the world, "before you all decided to bring them apart from nature, did you obtain approval from the animals?" Keeping animals in zoos are simply an act of ignoring animals and it does not seem to bring both animals and people any good. In the first place, animals want to be in the nature. Just same as human being, they have their own home, family, and friends. People, however, ignore all of these elements before keep them in a zoo. To speak figuratively with, nowadays, including Jews, all people in the world abuse the members of Nazi because they had confined and killed about six million innocent Jews. I believe that there is no difference between Nazi and zoo directors. Like jews, animals also try to escape from a zoo but failed. They are whipped and when they are old or useless, they are discarded as trash. They lose their identities and their own characters while living in a zoo.
In the second place, I disagree with those who think that a zoo has a useful purpose. They say that a zoo can be a good medium for children to be familiar with animals and a zoo can serve a shelter for endangered species. Also, they state that people can be entertained while watching animals. However, all these arguments are paradox. Firstly, even though children can have a close contact with animals, they will get misconception about animals. They will not think tigers, crocodiles as dangerous animals and also they will treat animals as toys. Secondly, since people transport animals from nature, the order of ecosystem, the ecological pyramid is distracted. Lastly, even if people can have fun from a zoo, I do not believe that invading animals' basic right can be considered as a reasonable act. To summarize with, a zoo violate animals' fundamental right and it does not serve anything good. For these reasons, I believe that a zoo does not serve as a useful purpose. Human being should let the nature be the way it was. |
먼저 끝까지 읽어주신 것에 대해서 감사의 말씀을 드립니다.
여러분께서 이 Writing의 점수를 주신다면 5점 만점 중 한 몇 점쯤 주시겠습니까?
그리고 조언도 부탁드립니다.
추가적으로, 한국인 선생님들은 서론-본론-결론의 틀을 중요시 여기는데요..
예를 들면 서론에서, 도입문, 양론, 주제의 순서로요.
이러한 틀이 고득점을 받는데 꼭 필요한 요소인가요?