«Missing the Zoos» - Free Essay Paper

Every author has measures of convincing readers of the opinions and ideas that are contained in their work. It is important to understand the kind of audience that one is dealing with, as this has an influence on the manner in which the author chooses to talk to the readers. In his article “Where Have All the Animals Gone?”, Siebert uses a number of appeal categories in convincing his readers (Siebert 15). However, one dominant appeal category stands out throughout the entire text. The following passage evidently shows prevailing appeal category that is used in this particular work.

“If we once could keep them just down the block, it was, in part, because looking at them allowed us to travel in place a world away. But now we’ve discovered and displaced so much of that world that we feel only guilt about detaining them any longer in such a harsh rendition of ours” (Siebert 15).

This passage gives us the direction of the author’s argument regarding the aim of convincing the readers. The central ideas within the text are built on the quality of this passage. As readers progress moving deeper into the text, they get more distinct picture of the author trying to elaborate his thoughts so that they may be convinced.

Considering the kind of audience in this particular case, the author has to be very categorical in the measures used so that the readers can agree to the opinions of the author. The identified passage shows use pathos as persuasive appeal. With clear descriptions of zoo in the past, which used to be a nice place to visit, the author captures an emotional mood of the readers and drags it through the entire article. It was indicated that this kind of audience is overwhelmed with emotional appeals, another reason that supports the author’s approach in delivering key points of his investigation and experience.

In order to remain relevant throughout the text, the author does not oppose formation of new zoos, which will have different regulations compared with old ones. Instead, the author demonstrates episodes of how visiting old zoos was open and allowed people to interact with animals freely. When the readers start to evaluate this matter from such a perspective, it becomes evident that the new zoos will not have the same impact on human life and wildlife as the old ones. With this opinion in mind, the author has the support of readers, as they are willing to learn more about old zoos.

The ambiguity of the passage also helps in drawing conclusions that catch the emotions of the reader. This is evident that the author continues to use pathos as his instrument of successful persuasion. Statements that give readers the freedom to make conclusions are consistently aimed at pegging their emotions to the events in the story they are reading. There is also no clear blame of those who can be potentially responsible for the changes being made in the zoo. Instead, the author refers to ‘we’ as the people responsible for the renovation of the zoo. This is a strategy to ensure that the readers feel part of the problem. When the readers acknowledge they are part of the problem, they become emotionally responsible for the entire story because they do not want to have a bad ending in a situation where they are involved.

Designated readership in this case becomes involved not only because the author has used persuasive appeal of pathos, but when he also applies logos. The most important thing is to avoid mistakes authors make by giving information that cannot be accounted for. Having fallacies in a story destroy the motivation of target audience to follow events and can easily revoke the interest that the readers had. Siebert knows how to handle his readers and he perfectly avoids one major trap that would have negatively influenced readership of his work. Brown-Nose fallacy would have been the common cause of poor readership of this text. If the author would have eliminated factual information to distinguish how different it is from visiting old zoos and the proposed ones, then many readers would not have been convinced. However, right from the start of the text, the author gives scenarios of him visiting the zoos and the experiences that he had. This information acts as support for the opinions that the author is giving in his work. It becomes easier for readers to believe what the author says because it is backed up with evidence of past visits to the zoos. By giving actual evidence instead of flattering information, Siebert clearly avoids brown-nose fallacy. It means that the ideas he extrapolates will be successful in convincing the designated readership.

Successful readership is based on an understanding of one’s audience and their preferences when it comes to comprehension. In any setting, the author has to aim for what is likely to work in attracting the audience, and then supply enough evidence to back it up. Lack of evidence can lead to a failed readership even when the best persuasive appeal was employed. Owing to cognitive skills, human beings have the ability to compare the information provided with facts. Any doubt cast on the information will most likely lead to poor readership.

It is also effective when the author involves readers throughout their work. The story should not concentrate on a particular individual as some readers may feel left out and this might lead to loss of interest. Responsibility is a good virtue that allows readers to dedicate their emotions and interests to the story they have to comprehend. Readership benefits from such interventions, which rely on the approach that the author uses in communicating with the audience.