Author’s Key idea
- The author discredits/ condemns/ the puppy factory owners who are exploiting puppies for commercial gain.
- The author advocates greater controls/stricter regulations to control the wanton sale of puppies.
Argument sentence
- Underpinning her proposal/criticism are statistics relating to the deaths of animals.
- She bases her criticism of the owners, on appeals to duty of care and asks all officials and parents to consider the welfare of the puppies.
Metalanguage:
- Using a simile, the author compares puppies with “disposable” toys or objects, and with “homeless tramps” to show that these animals are too easily discarded. (sympathy)
- The statistical reference to 250,000 discarded puppies reveals the magnitude of the /size of the surplus puppies. (sympathy/outrage)
- The author casts aspersions on the owners’ profit motives and suggests that profit comes before animal welfare. (marginalise/isolate/shame)
- Indignantly, (adopting an indignant/incredulous tone), the author rhetorically asks whether controls will be implemented to stop the deaths of “stray” animals.
- Rhetorically draws attention to the excess number of puppies..
- Appealing to duty of care issues, the author draws attention to the immature of children. This criticism of children also casts aspersions on parents.. who enable these gifts but fail to provide the nurturing environment.
- Appealing to the moral compass of government officials and parents, she urges tighter controls and the show of increased welfare towards these “discarded” puppies.
Emotive language and its purpose: See p. 16.
Identify the emotive language: and explain/analyse the emotional response/purpose. See page 77. Be precise about the emotional purpose/response. In other words, how she makes us angry, or how she provokes our sympathy.
“profiteering puppy factories”: (anger):
- The author arouses people’s anger towards the owners of the “profiteering puppy factories” because [….] (they are exploiting the animals).
“hard-hearted people” (wants us to feel angry)
- The author provokes our indignation at the “hard-hearted people” who [….] do not seem to care about the puppies.
“disposable commodities” (wants us to feel sorry and sad)
- By describing the puppies as “disposable commodities”, Ms Fry provokes our sympathy.
- The emotive reference to the “disposable commodities” seeks to elicit sympathy for the sad plight of the puppies.
“homeless tramps”
- Ms Fry appeals to the reader’s sympathy by depicting/describing the puppies as “homeless tramps”.
“this is a disgrace” (tries to make us feel bad)
- Ms Fry states that the treatment of the puppies “is a disgrace” which seeks to shame all those people who have no sense of duty.
- Ms Fry’s emphatic/assertive reference to “this is a disgrace” seeks to shame and isolate those people who do not care.
- Shame – doing something dishonourable; ignominious – ignominy – public disgrace contempt
“tireless work of many volunteers” (making us feel good/secure/pleased)/community leadership values – doing the right thing) – reassurance – and value their goodwill and good work – inspiring
- Ms Fry reassures members of the public that we can make a difference by following the “tireless work of many volunteers”.\
- Ms Fry encourages us to support and follow the good will shown by the “tireless” volunteers.
Return to Exercises 7 – 8, Green Workbook