Text A

Grade 7

The text “Zoos are prisons for animals – no one needs to see a depressed penguin in the flesh” is an opinion column written by Romesh Ranganathan for The Guardian in 2015. While the primary purpose of the text is to paint the “miserable” reality of zoos, the author satirizes its hypocrisy to commence his argument that zoos should be banned. With this purpose, the text appeals to a broad audience which include parents who often visit zoos with their children. As the author utilizes humor, personal pronouns, and anecdotes in his piece to construct his opinion about zoos, he creates an emotionally resonant experience for his readers .

Immediately in the exposition of his writing, Ranganathan skillfully melds humor with his critique to affect the audience on a profoundly emotional level. This is evident from the title, as mentioning a “depressed penguin” in a lighthearted manner still allows the author to clearly present his stance about zoos which he perceives to be “prisons for animals.” Moreover, the text is keen to give specific examples instead of providing general arguments; note how the text starts off with a sardonic introduction to “Gerry the goat” with a peculiar appetite of “[playing] a game in which he looks like he has been crying.” The specificity of the opening serves as visual imagery, guiding the audience to vividly imagine the situation at hand. Alongside that, by anthropomorphizing Gerry, the text creates a disheartening mood where the audience can sympathize with and pity Gerry’s state of despair. The comical way Ranganathan chooses to capture Gerry’s state juxtaposes the tragic and dire stakes of the situation; the nonchalance reflects how zoos turn a blind eye on their depressed animals and refuse to take responsibility. Essentially, the nonsensical explanation not only provides levity but also highlights the outrageous nature of the situation, mocking zoos for its incompetence and nudging the readers to judge them in a similar manner.

An interesting feature of the text is how Ranganathan also ridicules the visitors of zoos, which by extension, are the readers. The author again provides a comically specific example of “Timothy” and his parents visiting the zoo to “wander round ... before going home to post on Facebook about the educational day.” By contrasting the ostensibly educational purpose of zoos with the mindless consumption that takes place in it, the text challenges the traditional idea of zoo’s “educational merit” and forces the readers to ponder if they are complicit in zoos serving as entertainment. However, despite stimulating contemplation, directly criticizing the audience runs the risk of coming off as patronizing and may alienate the audience. To avoid such detriment, Ranganathan strategically utilizes the pronoun “we.” Instead of using “you,” which would create a clear distinction between the author and the reader and place the author on the moral high ground, by using “we,” the author implies that he is also morally compromised, communicating that he is not belittling the audience but is calling for a collective introspection. However, it is true the pronoun “you” is also used in the article. For example, the author states “If you don’t believe me, visit a farm park,” communicating the author’s confidence in the prevalence of animal maltreatment. Here, the assumption that the audience will not believe him may be perceived to be too confrontational; however, Ranganathan follows it with a humorous remark, nullifying its seriousness.

To engage the readers in his opinion about zoos, the personal presence of the author is further established through the use of his anecdotes. Ranganathan shares his experience “[visiting] a marine theme park” where “a two-minute video about saving dolphins” was followed up by a “10-minute demonstration” of them performing tricks. Though expressed in a casual tone, the disparity in values emphasizes the disingenuity of zoos and their pretense. Furthermore, the use of the word “enslave” reinforces the idea that “zoos are prisons” - an extended metaphor introduced in the title to frame the overall argument. Within this anecdote, the author reveals his selfishness when he states he questioned the zoo’s actions as much as he “wondered why [his] own children hadn’t been offered” the dolphin-boat ride. One could argue this decision damages the author’s ethos as it reveals his fallible nature. However, the author’s candidness compliments the emotional genuinity that he aims to establish as the foundation of his argument. Ultimately, considering the target audience encompasses parents, they may identify with the author knowing he also is a parent and share the primal urge to want the best for their children.

In conclusion, Ranganathan effectively creates an emotional appeal to argue that zoos should be banned. While the use of humor alone may have potentially portrayed him as an illogical and ingenuine writer, his combination of robust diction and anecdotes have successfully strengthened his opinion about the antiquated as well as unethical operations of zoos.

Criteria	Mark	Feedback
A	5	The response demonstrates perceptive knowledge and understanding of text with interpretation supported by convincing references. Understanding of the target audience was well justified within the writing.
B	4	The candidate appropriately identified and analyzed various authorial choices ranging from anthropomorphism to anecdote. However, more interpretation could have been made, situating it at Band 4.
C	5	The response maintains good coherence and focus to the guiding question. More specifically, anchoring the overall response to “humor” as a foundational technique for all other points gives it no less than a 5.
D	5	The language is sophisticated and varied with precise vocabulary and terminologies. Great use of punctuations such as semicolons that vary sentence structures.
19 / 20