Please give me comments to amend this essay and if it is possible, score for me. In fact, my problem is how to describe my idea within 300 words. I try to short and coherence this. Still confusing about the conclusion paragraph and personal paragraph >"<
.....................................................................................................................
The relationship between zoo and animal continues be a controversial topic, although the zoo right now evolves into "animal-park". In the following essay, I will clarify views of 2 perspectives about this problem and offer my personal opinion on the end of the discussion.
First, we discuss about perspective the anti-lobby who totally refute the role of zoo. In their opinion, the zoo damage the natural habitat of animal - include the survival in the wildlife and how to take care their offspring naturally. Moreover, it is immoral if we capture them on the narrow space for serving the benefit of human. Finally, the zoo is limited the evolved process of animal which is mentioned on "Evolution Theory" of Darwin about an adapted ability of animal in the natural environment.
Conversely, the support-lobby assume that the role of the zoo is protected the animal. At the present, we can't control an illegal hunting and the zoo is the best solution. On the other hand, facing with the endangered animal disappear more and more because of "big fish eats small fish" and natural diseases, the role of the zoo isn't declined. Furthermore, with the developed science, a human can create and protect the new species in the semi-natural environment.
On my personal opinion, I think the role of the zoo is predominant because it will protect the animal from the illegal poacher in the present circumstance when we can't control that. Besides, human effort creates the environment which nearly similar with a natural home of animal like the national park and trains them to live in the natural environment without interruption of human. Eventually, we can' refute that the area of the modern zoo - "national park" is more and more expanding and that is the great safeguard for many animals.
.....................................................................................................................
the role of zoos for human
The relationship between zoo and animal continues be a controversial topic, although the zoo right now evolves into "animal-park". In the following essay, I will clarify views of 2 perspectives about this problem and offer my personal opinion on the end of the discussion.
First, we discuss about perspective the anti-lobby who totally refute the role of zoo. In their opinion, the zoo damage the natural habitat of animal - include the survival in the wildlife and how to take care their offspring naturally. Moreover, it is immoral if we capture them on the narrow space for serving the benefit of human. Finally, the zoo is limited the evolved process of animal which is mentioned on "Evolution Theory" of Darwin about an adapted ability of animal in the natural environment.
Conversely, the support-lobby assume that the role of the zoo is protected the animal. At the present, we can't control an illegal hunting and the zoo is the best solution. On the other hand, facing with the endangered animal disappear more and more because of "big fish eats small fish" and natural diseases, the role of the zoo isn't declined. Furthermore, with the developed science, a human can create and protect the new species in the semi-natural environment.
On my personal opinion, I think the role of the zoo is predominant because it will protect the animal from the illegal poacher in the present circumstance when we can't control that. Besides, human effort creates the environment which nearly similar with a natural home of animal like the national park and trains them to live in the natural environment without interruption of human. Eventually, we can' refute that the area of the modern zoo - "national park" is more and more expanding and that is the great safeguard for many animals.