No one wants to be kept and restricted in a small place or area, and this is the same for animals. To confine them in a cage or a very limited area is inhuman. This is selfish of humans to keep animals such as: lions, eagles, monkeys and birds in zoos only for their own amusement. Last week I happen to be accompanied by some relatives in a zoo, and I could see the distress in animals faces there. I think this extreme unhappiness can affect their health too, and I found that this feeling of mine is not baseless when I read in Animals’ World magazine that Richard Dawkins, an eminent anthologist has said: “keeping animals in zoos will put a notable impact on their behavior through the time”. To deprive animals from living in nature is cruel.
I think proof reading your essay goes against the “homework” rules of the board.
There is a good rebuttal out there. I think it might have been in “Life of Pi” but I’m not sure. It went something like, animals are like humans with regards to being happier if they have a secure environment with a reliable source of food. The “freedom” of unregulated nature is overrated for every species.
I would say “inhumane” rather than “inhuman.” “Inhuman” is usually reserved for acts so outrageous that no human being could believe another human being would be capable of doing them. “Inhumane” is more lacking of concern or compassion for others.
This is selfish of humans to keep animals such as: lions, eagles, monkeys and birds in zoos only for their own amusement.
Change “this” to “it.”
Remove the colon.
Last week I happen to be accompanied by some relatives in a zoo, and I could see the distress in animals faces there.
It sounds like the relatives are inmates in the zoo.
You could say “at a zoo” if you met the relatives there, but more likely you were accompanied by the relatives “to a zoo.” Better yet, you were accompanied by some relatives “on a visit to a zoo.”
Change “happen” to “happened” – watch your tenses!
Put an apostrophe after “animals” to indicate possession.
I think this extreme unhappiness can affect their health too, and I found that this feeling of mine is not baseless when I read in Animals’ World magazine that Richard Dawkins, an eminent anthologist has said: “keeping animals in zoos will put a notable impact on their behavior through the time”.
is not baseless -> was not baseless. You “found” (past tense). Keep it consistent.
An “anthologist” is a specialized type of book editor. Surely you could have found a more likely expert to quote? I am not sure what word you were looking for, maybe zoologist?
has said -> either “said” or “had said” Tenses!
Put a comma after “anothologist.” The phrase “an eminent anthologist” stands in apposition to “Richard Dawkins” and so needs to be surrounded by commas.
Replace the colon with a comma and capitalize the first letter of “keeping.”
Richard Dawkins might have been misquoted. He is more likely to have said, “Keeping animals in zoos will have a notable (noticeable?) impact on their behavior over time.”
You did a good job this week. You saved me time going over your essay!
I think proof reading your essay goes against the “homework” rules of the board.
I already explained that this comes from a self-learner, It’s not homework at all.
[I know I’ll have to keep posting this since I’m not gonna stop posting questions. (Fair enough?)].
There were a couple of uses of “this” where “it” would be better: “and it is the same for animals” and “It is selfish of humans”.
You don’t need the colon in your third line: “animals such as lions, eagles, monkeys and birds”.
The pronoun is unclear in the third sentence. “Their own amusement” could refer to the humans’ amusement or the animals’ amusement. You’d be better off with “only for people’s amusement”.
Giving eagles and birds as examples is redundant.
The construction in your fourth line is awkward. I’d suggest “Last week I went to the zoo with some relatives”.
There should be an apostrophe in animals’ faces.
“This feeling of mine” is awkward. You’d be better off with “I found that this feeling is not baseless” or “I found that my feeling is not baseless”.
I don’t think anthologist is the word you want. An anthologist is a person that puts together a collection of works written by other people. A person who studies animals is a zoologist.
“Through the time” should be “through time”.
Deprive and from don’t work together. It should either be “To prevent animals from living in nature” or “To deprive animals of living in nature”.
Many farmers do not enjoy modern farming machinery such as combine and tiller, so they have to work hard and handle different jobs with their old tools. They take care of animals by providing them safe shelter and enough food which sometimes it requires that farmers drive miles away. According to an article in Green World publication quoted by Jeffery Hamilton, Harvard university lecturer “Most farmers can’t afford to pay back the loans available for agricultural purposes, so they make do with their primeval tools, and that’s quite a strain on them.” Working under the sunlight or rainfall is another point which I think make the days for farmers really hard.
Note: When I read the last sentence quickly I feel that “farmers” need article “the”, but then I ask myself the text is not referring to any specific farmers and it is talking about them in general.
What are they best ways to cope with the tricky usage of “The”? Reading a lot, yes?
“Many… do not” is an odd construction in English. We can say “Many enjoy,” “Few enjoy,” or “Few do not enjoy,” but for “Many do not,” it is better to say “There are many farmers who do not enjoy…” I couldn’t say why. And yes, in this case you’d say “the combine” and “the tiller.”
This is pretty good. The only changes I’d suggest are changing “that farmers drive” to “that they drive,” and “miles away” to “many miles away” or “far away.” It isn’t wrong as it stands, grammatically, just slightly unnatural. The sense is strange: it sort of sounds like the farmer is driving his sheep to an underground safehouse or something. Perhaps the last part should read “miles out of their way.”
This is not ideal. What you have said is that a Harvard lecturer has quoted some unnamed person’s article in a publicaton called Green World. There are a few mechanical errors (Green World should be in italics, University should be capitalized or omitted altogether), but it’s an unnecessary sentence as written. What does it matter that the guy quoting the article is a Harvard lecturer? Who wrote the article? What kind of a publicaiton is Green World?
Grammatically, really good. I would have said “make the days really hard for farmers,” but your version is ever so slightly more poetic. The use of “the” with days but not farmers is correct.
“Under the sunlight or rainfall” is perfectly comprehensible but odd-sounding. I would have said “Under the sun and rain” or “Outside in the sun and rain.” Obviously, we are talking about some sunny days and some rainy days, so I can’t tell you why it’s “and” and not “or”; I guess because you are talking about a period of time which includes both.
The basic sentence boils down to “Working is another point,” and I don’t think “point” is quite the right word choice. “Aspect”? “Element”? “Facet?”
“Working is another point which make…” : you don’t need the subjunctive. Check your verbs.
About driving miles away, I meant that “drive away to fetch food”. But I admit there was not clear explanation to convey this to the reader. This is exactly a point which I read today in this writing guide book which I’m practicing on.
It says “The readers are not clairvoyant , and we should explain our supports”
This is a part of the essay which I’m supposed to include; an imaginative reference and a statement by an authority.
The emphasis was on the “magazine” and " the person in authority", adding the article’s author could sound too lengthy.
An imaginative one, it is supposed to sound something about agricultural and gardening issues; I just dreamed it up! furnish me with a better one. Thanks.
People don’t like being forced to live in a limited space for a long time and without a doubt this holds true for most wild animals. Intuitively, one feels that confining animals in a cage or a small area is inhuman. Keeping lions, eagles, monkeys and birds in zoos purely for amusement is selfish. Last week, accompanied by some relatives to the zoo, I saw first hand the look of distress in the animals’ faces. I also thought this unhappiness will ultimately affect their health. I found out later that my feelings were justified. Reading “Animals’ World magazine,” I saw a qoute from Richard Dawkins saying “keeping animals in zoos will put a notable impact on their behavior through the time”. Regardless of purpose and justification, depriving animals of their natural freedom and habits is cruel.
I think I’d use a snappier fake quote and use a proper reference style. Also, maybe move it so it matches with a sentence. So it would come out something like:
Maybe this breaks your “one paragraph” rule though.
Modern farming machinery, such as the combine, and tiller, are not accessible by many farmers, who must instead work harder to handle different jobs using just their old tools. Sometimes too, providing safe shelter, and enough food for their animals necessitates the farmer driving miles away. “Green World” offers this quote by Harvard University lecturer Jeffery Hamilton, “Most farmers can’t afford to pay back the loans available for agricultural purposes, so they make do with their primeval tools, and that’s quite a strain on them.” In my opinion, working under hot or wet conditions is yet another daily challenge for the farmer.
Aha! I see. In that case, I think the problem is “quoted by.” You mean “written by.” Also, you want a reference to an authority, not the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Merely being employed by Harvard doesn’t tell us why we should care, though his field of expertise might. “According to Jeffrey Hamilton’s article on farmer stress, published in Green World…” or “Jeffrey Hamilton, a professor of Farm Studies at Harvard, writes ‘long quote’ in Green World.”
