IDNLearn.com provides a user-friendly platform for finding answers to your questions. Get comprehensive and trustworthy answers to all your questions from our knowledgeable community members.
Read this excerpt from a passage.
Unfortunately, saving elephants had a negative economic effect on some people. In 1999, in response to pressure from business interests that were losing money because of the ban on the ivory trade, CITES allowed limited trade in stockpiled tusks. Ivory that already had been harvested from elephants could once again be bought and sold.
But disaster for the African elephant followed. Poachers, or illegal hunters, rushed to kill more elephants. Many people had foreseen that illegal trading of ivory would flourish again if any trading at all were allowed. Following the CITES decision, African elephants died in large numbers. A 2014 New York Times editorial reported that approximately 30,000 to 35,000 African elephants were killed each year. Only a complete ban of the ivory trade can save the African elephant from extinction.
What is one way that the author shows bias toward the topic?
The number of elephants killed does not seem realistic, so it could be false.
The author does not use a primary source as evidence.
The author uses subjective language to describe the effects of the poaching.
The author states that "saving elephants had a negative economic impact on some people," which is a cruel way of thinking about elephants.
Sagot :
Your engagement is important to us. Keep sharing your knowledge and experiences. Let's create a learning environment that is both enjoyable and beneficial. Thank you for visiting IDNLearn.com. We’re here to provide clear and concise answers, so visit us again soon.
