I found the paper very well put together but overall I believe that the author has too many emotions swirling around in the paper. By citing their close relationship with the tragedy that happened on 9/11 puts their emotions over the top. I thought the paper was too emotional to get their point across.

It seems like the creators of the ad accomplished what they were trying to achieve. They got this author along with most of the readers into this WWF is a terrible society notion. They were trying to bring light to the subject of wildlife conservation. They got the reader’s attention even if it was negative but I bet a few years from now everyone who saw that would recall it. They succeeded by playing off of your emotions.

If someone who read this and agreed with the WWF ad would be turned off completely and more than likely not finish it. The author has such a commanding emotion I thought that it was over powering.

The other issue I would change if I had to be picky is to reformat the flow of the paper. I would move my strongest point first and end with my weakest point so my strong conclusion could make the paper flow better. Other than those little issues I thought the paper was very good.

In my own paper I hope to find an ad that affects me as much as this author but with a little less emotion added in. The ad I want is something I can relate to and talk about but able to keep from going overboard on the emotion.

 

IS NOT