Writer who well-know SDSU WPA format

Sample WPA Essay by Selena Kyle

“No More Curtain Calls for Elephants,” an article published in the Los Angeles Times’ newspaper and composed by its own editorial board, brings the issue of domestic elephant mistreatment to light and declares its support of the Los Angeles City Council’s consideration of a measure that would promote domestic elephant welfare. In writing a story that was most immediately available and applicable to Los Angeles residents, the LA Times’ editorial board hopes to bring more awareness of the problem to the community and simultaneously create a broader base of support for the City Council measure.

The LA Times’ editorial board uses two strategies to appeal to Los Angeles readers. First, the board includes a description of the average weight, age, and health complications that apply to domestic elephants in an effort to appeal to their sense of logic: “For 8,000-to-10,000- pound creatures who spend all day on their feet and can live into their 40s, the consequence of confinement was a painful middle age, marked by arthritis, cracked toenails, and sore feet.” The use of quantifiable characteristics of the animals and evidence of real problems that result from the current state of their treatment makes the issue more substantial for readers. The presentation of data such as this makes for an argument that readers would find unworthy of their energy and unconvincing otherwise.

The board also uses ethos to appeal to the audience’s respect for authority. They mention and intrinsically agree with an instruction of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums to its member facilities to adopt the restriction of keepers sharing space with elephants. By referring to an organization that has more experience with and is more knowledgeable about animals and subsequently agreeing with its propositions, the board validates its position and suggests the reader hold the position as well, or even respect the position at the least. Due to the fact that many LA residents are average, working-class Americans, it is likely they will respect the authority of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

The article is organized in a manner of subsequent contradictory comparisons between the poor conditions of many elephants’ lives in captivity and the better lives that elephants have a right to live. The editorial board compares elephants’ healthy activities in their natural habitats of the wild in Asia and Africa with the unhealthy state of their captivity in zoos. They go on to compare the stellar facilities and zookeeper practices at the LA zoo with the arguably unethical treatment of elephants in American circuses and country fairs. This structure furthers the board’s argument because it gives the readers specific situations to consider and examples on which to formulate their opinions. By placing such contrasting

instances so close together, the board encourages the audience’s disdain for the mistreatment of elephants and a desire for a change, which is met with a convenient outlet—the City Council measure at hand.

The editorial board’s argument is based on two assumptions that may reduce their position’s validity in the eyes of the reader. An assumption that is implied throughout the article is the idea that elephants are the victims of the domestic mistreatment and in this way are portrayed as weak and helpless and overall benevolent creatures, especially when they describe the elephants as “gentle giants” and “brave warriors in battle.” While this may be true in one sense, they neglect another obvious truth of the obvious danger elephants present to humans. Their simply enormous physical state overpowers that of people, which allows for the possibility of keepers being hurt—and more importantly—not having the physical capabilities to care for the animals in certain ways. If this idea was mentioned, readers may more readily find the issue more valid and worth their concern.

Another assumption the board infers is that improvement of domestic elephants’ lives in captivity is the only solution to the issue. There are other solutions that they failed to mention, for instance, the suggestion of allowing elephants in captivity to be released back to their natural habitats, away from their human keepers and the issue of domestic mistreatment altogether. By failing to propose more than the solution of supporting the LA City Council’s measure to promote captive elephants’ welfare, the issues is made to seem less genuine to readers’ eyes and perhaps based in political or financial motives rather than what is truly best for the elephants.

In conclusion, while the LA Times’ editorial board may have compiled the articles on the basis of some misleading premises, the organization and strategies that were applied made their argument effective overall. The comparisons in the organization steered readers to hold the position held by the board and the ethos and logos used increased the credibility of the argument. LA residents are likely to consider the issue of domestic elephant mistreatment more critically than they would if they had not read the article, and may even go as far as to support the City Council’s measure of mistreatment and prevention.