Dog Ban Only Solution To Attacks: Article Analysis

Dog bans have been a controversial issue in modern years. Some believe that action needs to be made to protect humans from certain aggressive dog breeds and others believe that attacks result from poor care. The author of “Dog Ban Only Solution to Attacks” expresses his opinion on supporting the bans. He supports this using several cases of anecdotal evidence and quotes, and tends to get emotional in several paragraphs. The article wasn’t very well written in my personal opinion and I disagree with his support for banning specific dog breeds.
In the article “Dog Ban Only Solution to Attacks”, the author expresses his opinion of banning certain types of dog breeds in America. The author opens his article by talking about the educational programs many schools have to teach children how to work with animals. He then makes the point that although it is important to teach children how to act around animals, that won’t keep dog attacks from happening. He supports this point by following it with a story of a zookeeper with twenty years of experience who was killed by a tiger. The author follows by mentioning several people in

In each bit of evidence he brings up, there’s no statement explaining why or how each of these attacks came to be. If all of these attacks were random, and there was no justification for them then it would definitely prove his point much better. He also fails to give statistics. He quotes Aukland mayor Phil Goff to prove his point, saying “Goff pointed to the fact that the number of dog attacks in January this year were double what they were a couple of years ago, saying "every day there's a couple of hospitalisations caused by dog attacks".” But this doesn’t give the reader an amount. Double could mean from one to two, and a couple hospitalizations could be a very small number. His article would be much stronger if he gave more reasons and hard