Question

+100 points and I will give BRAINLIEST to the best answer

Answer 1

Answer: All right, here goes nothing. *cracks knuckles*

To begin with, the article has a weak claim. While it does vaguely introduce their stance on the topic, it poses it as a question and not a statement. Also, this claim is written in the first person, unlike strong claims that are supposed to be written in the third person. As for the "support" section, even the very beginning strays from the original claim, instead saying why they should own a pet instead of why everyone should be allowed to own pets. For example, in the second paragraph, the author cites a story from a friend of a friend. That is not valid evidence. If it was on the news, however, and the author cited that as evidence instead, the article would be much stronger. The author also delves deeper into their own personal life instead of stating facts as they should have. The transition between paragraphs is clunky at best, with the third paragraph pretty much restating the claim instead of simply saying something like "Pets are helpful to our society." And finally, the entire purpose of that last sentence seems to be to wrap up the article in a hasty fashion, without any attention to restating the claim or the facts presented.

Hope this meets the criteria! Good luck!!

Answer 2

Answer:

Well even there is already an answer, you can use mine also, give it to a friend if they need one because you can't reuse yours, or mix both of them into one better answer.

Now here is the actual answer:

This essay is ineffective since the author does not provide any factual evidence to support their claim that people should be able to own pets. It also starts off with a weak hook used as a question instead of a statement or quote about the topic. In addition, another mistake found is that the first-person point of view and the author's opinions make the text sound weak. A possible improvement is to use the third person POV as that will make it sound much more professional. On to the next two sections, their evidence does not come from legit sources, and the evidence does not even support their claim, plus there were no transitions. Their claim was that everyone should be able to own pets, yet they are only providing evidence about why everyone should own pets. If they focused on only one claim, and they got evidence from valid articles or the news, then that would have made the article so much more persuasive. Not to mention, a few tweaks such as adding transition words would have greatly improved it. Finally, the last sentence, is a weak way to end it. It would have been better to instead restate the claim and facts that were initially presented earlier.

If you do give me brainly I would be very happy.