What do you think a parrot can do?

Talk

Explanation:

Why is the argument ineffective? (in 7-10 sentences)

The question asks if people should own pets. In this argument the student put a lot of their opinion and what they think of pets. Putting in facts about pets would have been beneficial and would have backed up their argument better. Also, the person used family to back up their argument. They could have done an interview of a person who has pets and benefits from them. (Like an older person or disabled person who uses support dogs, etc.) Another thing the person did wrong, was use a the question "what would we do without pets?" as a conclusion. They could have answered their own question or better say what pets could do to make things better ending the argument on a positive note.

-Hope this helps ^^)/

The text above states that people should have pets when people love animals (since animals love these people) and that animals can save lives by informing them about fires, for example. This argument cannot be considered as effective because it fails to state one thing: raising pets requires dedication, time, money and space.

Loving pets is not enough to have one at home. These animals are not independent and need some to feed them, take them to the doctor, distract them, bathe them and clean up the dirt they make. This requires time and dedication and we know that many people have a very busy daily life and therefore do not have the possibility to set aside time to care for animals that need care.

In addition, animals need their own space where they can play and have fun. In places with little space, animals can cause some accidents, which can hurt them or destroy the structure and furniture of the house.

Furthermore, animals are irrational beings, which means that they cannot reason, so no one should raise a pet, hoping that it will help you in some activity, or even save your life.

In short, just loving animals is not enough to have them at home, a person who wants to have a pet must be able to meet the needs of the animals and understand the limitations they have.

The text above states that people should have pets when people love animals (since animals love these people) and that animals can save lives by informing them about fires, for example. This argument cannot be considered as effective because it fails to state one thing: raising pets requires dedication, time, money and space.

Loving pets is not enough to have one at home. These animals are not independent and need some to feed them, take them to the doctor, distract them, bathe them and clean up the dirt they make. This requires time and dedication and we know that many people have a very busy daily life and therefore do not have the possibility to set aside time to care for animals that need care.

In addition, animals need their own space where they can play and have fun. In places with little space, animals can cause some accidents, which can hurt them or destroy the structure and furniture of the house.

Furthermore, animals are irrational beings, which means that they cannot reason, so no one should raise a pet, hoping that it will help you in some activity, or even save your life.

In short, just loving animals is not enough to have them at home, a person who wants to have a pet must be able to meet the needs of the animals and understand the limitations they have.

The person on the top is correct

Explanation: