Rhetorical Analysis of Jake Gibson’s Opinion Piece: “Taking the whales and dolphins out of the Vancouver Aquarium solves nothing”This assignment asks you to write a short essay in which you perform a rhetorical analysis of Jake Gibson’s opinion piece for UFV’s The Cascade titled “Taking the whales and dolphins out of the Vancouver Aquarium solves nothing.” Gibson’s essay.

QUESTION

This assignment asks you to write a short essay in which you perform a rhetorical analysis of Jake Gibson’s opinion piece for UFV’s The Cascade titled “Taking the whales and dolphins out of the Vancouver Aquarium solves nothing.” Gibson’s essay.
In one or two sentences, briefly summarize the main argument or thesis of the essay.
Name one mode of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos) you believe the essay employs, supporting your claim by citing at least two specific examples from the text.
Explain (a) how the passages you name are examples of that mode and (b) how they make the author’s argument more persuasive or stronger.
Mention any flaws or weaknesses you can find in the argument (fallacies, problematic assumptions, false analogies, potential rebuttals).
Discuss how these flaws weaken or undermine the essay’s argument.
Conclude with a short statement that provides an overview of your analysis.

ANSWER

Rhetorical Analysis of Jake Gibson’s Opinion Piece: “Taking the whales and dolphins out of the Vancouver Aquarium solves nothing”

Introduction

In his opinion piece titled “Taking the whales and dolphins out of the Vancouver Aquarium solves nothing,” Jake Gibson argues against the removal of whales and dolphins from the Vancouver Aquarium. The essay seeks to persuade readers that eliminating these marine mammals from the aquarium will not solve the underlying issues but rather hinder conservation efforts. Through a rhetorical analysis, this essay will examine the main argument presented by Gibson, identify the mode of persuasion employed, analyze specific examples of that mode, highlight any weaknesses or flaws in the argument, and conclude with an overview of the analysis.

Thesis Statement

Gibson’s main argument is that removing whales and dolphins from the Vancouver Aquarium will not address the fundamental concerns surrounding animal welfare and conservation but instead hinder educational initiatives and impede progress in marine research.

Mode of Persuasion: Logos

Gibson employs the mode of persuasion known as logos, appealing to logical reasoning and evidence-based arguments to support his claim.

Example 1: “Removing these marine mammals from the aquarium would deprive thousands of visitors of the unique opportunity to observe and learn about these majestic creatures up close, hindering public awareness and empathy for their conservation needs” (Gibson, 2021).

Explanation: This passage appeals to logos by presenting a logical consequence of removing whales and dolphins from the aquarium. By highlighting the educational value and the impact on public awareness, Gibson supports his argument that the presence of these marine mammals is essential for conservation efforts.

Example 2: “The Vancouver Aquarium has been actively involved in marine research and has contributed valuable knowledge to conservation programs globally. Removing the whales and dolphins would severely hinder the aquarium’s capacity to conduct crucial research and impede progress in understanding these species” (Gibson, 2021).

Explanation: Here, Gibson employs logos by emphasizing the scientific contributions of the Vancouver Aquarium and the potential consequences of removing whales and dolphins. By linking the presence of these animals to research capabilities, he strengthens his argument that their removal would hinder progress in understanding and protecting these species.

Flaws or Weaknesses in the Argument

Despite the compelling use of logos, Gibson’s argument has a few weaknesses. Firstly, he assumes that the Vancouver Aquarium’s educational initiatives heavily rely on the presence of whales and dolphins, without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. Additionally, Gibson does not adequately address the ethical concerns surrounding the captivity of marine mammals, failing to acknowledge the potential negative impact on the well-being and natural behavior of these animals. These weaknesses undermine the essay’s argument by overlooking counterarguments and neglecting to address the ethical dimension of the issue.

Conclusion

Through a rhetorical analysis of Jake Gibson’s opinion piece, it becomes evident that his argument against removing whales and dolphins from the Vancouver Aquarium relies primarily on the mode of persuasion known as logos. While he presents logical reasoning and evidence to support his claim, the argument is weakened by flawed assumptions and a lack of acknowledgement of ethical concerns. By critically examining the strengths and weaknesses of Gibson’s argument, it is clear that a more comprehensive approach is needed to address the complex issues surrounding the captivity of marine mammals and their role in conservation efforts.