The existence of zoos often comes up in conversation these days, as it is, without a shadow of a doubt, a very controversial topic. What is the actual aim of these organisations? – To help or to destroy? Both texts try to answer these questions, but apparently the authors look at these issues from different perspectives.
The first passage argues that zoos are often erroneously considered to be actual educational institutions, although the animals, which are kept in unnaturally tiny cages, literary cannot help in reality any academic learn anything about their life in their natural habitat. It is a dreadful mistake to substitute the concepts of science and morality. We ought not to keep animals in captivity, no matter how entertaining the visiting a zoo is. Should we build reservations where all living beings are safe and free, it would be much more riveting to watch them, and this observation would definitely be of some scientific value.
In contrast, the second text suggests that the solemn duty of zoos it to save endangered animals, as their natural habitat has been destroyed by people – therefore it is our responsibility to keep an eye on them. In addition, zoos create an opportunity to study animals up close and personal, which is fantastic since distance can become an insurmountable obstacle for zoologists. Nonetheless, the hazardous effect on captured animals’ psyche is not a price we should be willing to pay. Had we not ruined the nature, the animals would be living in the wild, without any threats to their lives. Moreover, the 21st century is the climax of the technological revolution, therefore “distance” cannot be thought of as a hurdle. With all of our high-tech equipment, we can reach any corner of our vast planet in a matter of seconds.
Thus, animals’ lives are just as paramount as the advances in the scientific world. Therefore, we should not forget that our desire to explore has to have its limits.
Here’s the actual task. It’s from Masterclass Proficiency (p. 30)