Question

which reason mostclearly uses pathos to support this argumen? Zoos are overall ore positive than negative. A. some animals, such as elephants, tend to do better in the wild. B. evidece shows that most animals tend to live inger in zoos. C. one kangaroo, zoe, would have never survived without a zoo. D. many zoologogists argue that zoos can help some animals survive

Answer 1

Option C, which tells the story of Zoe the kangaroo, uses pathos by appealing to emotions to argue that zoos have a positive impact. Zoos contribute to conservation and education, despite the moral debate surrounding the captivity of animals.

Step-by-step explanation:

The reason that most clearly uses pathos to support the argument that zoos are overall more positive than negative is option C: "one kangaroo, Zoe, would have never survived without a zoo." This statement appeals to the audience's emotions by highlighting the individual success story of Zoe the kangaroo, which is meant to engender sympathy and a positive view of zoos' role in saving vulnerable animals.

Zoos play a crucial role not only in terms of conservation efforts and breeding programs for endangered species but also in the education of the public about wildlife and conservation challenges. However, the complexity of zoo animals' needs and the historical commodification of animals in Western societies raise questions about the moral and psychological value of zoos.

Answer 2

Explanation: Pathos is an argument that appeals to an audience’s emotions. It is used to draw an emotional response. In this case, option C “one kangaroo, zoe, would have never survived without a zoo” uses pathos to support the argument that zoos are overall more positive than negative.

Hope this helps :3