This video was really good, the claim they made is animal shelters should be funded by the Government. Which means the government should donate and provide money to help support an animal shelter. Some evidence that supported their claim was pathos because the Max Fund has been in debt at any given time about 10,000 dollars or more. The reasoning that helped connect the evident to the claim wasn’t really expressed in a clear way. I think they did a good job, and the video was well presented. I think this video was enjoyable to watch. The way the video was cut was perfect and very easy to see that they worked really hard on it. The documentary was easy to watch and very engaging it kept my interest very well. GOOD JOB!
The video was awesome. The claim was that animal shelters should receive government funding. the evidence was that it would help them have bigger & better facilities. The reasoning is pathos because they try to get people on their side talking about animals. The video flowed really well, and the interviews from distant types of people really helped with the video. The facts about animal shelters also helped with understanding the system a bit better.
This video was very good! The claim presented was clear and precise. The claim was that animal shelters should receive government funding.The evidence reported is that in the interview she asks certain questions that support the claim. There was reasoning shown because different people were interviewed. The different point of views are shown. The technology was most deffinitely used in a very affective way. The microphone could have maybe been a little bit louder. This documentary was very engaging. I think that just the sound should be fixed so it is louder. This video appeals to logos.
The digital documetary about animal shelters had interviews to show valid points to express the claim of, the government should fund non kill animal shelters. If they got more funding they could expand the shelters to fit more animals and be able to not have to euthanize the animals. They used ethos when interviewing the expert women that works at the max fund animal shelter. She said how its tough to be a no kill shelter because they help all animals and it can be costly. If the government funded the shelters they could do much better and save more animals. the documentary used interviews well to give information from real live people in the animal sheltering industry. it was tasteful and informative.
This video was very informational and shows the use ethos and logos by inerviewing the no kill shelter lady and the others. this vid also claimed that the no kill shelters should have government funding. this video was one of the best video ive seen so far.
There claim is that animal shelters are good for the community and should receive more government funding to help support the shelters. They used a viable source that supports animal shelters and adopted a Chihuahua from the Max found no kill shelter. They also interviewed someone that works at the max found animal shelter and said that they need more money so that they can be able to give that animal the second chance. They need the government to help fund these shelters because its is expensive to take care of animals. The average cost for an animals surgery is from about 800-2000 dollars. With help from the government they can build more non kill shelters for the communities. The technology used in this documentary was used in an effective way. The only bad thing about it was that it was sometimes hard to understand what the speaker was saying. The documentary was very convincing in getting the audience to agree with having the government support the shelters, along with the video being polished and filled with facts and reasoning to support the claim.
This video was very well put together it useds the opinions of everyone from the no kill animal shelters to the people that have adopted pets from them. it clearly states the claim that there should be more government funding for animal shelters, expecialy the no kill ones because they have to make room for new animals every day plus pay for the food and the medical bills of bring pets into vets when theyre sick or have any issues physicaly. very well put together with good support on the issues. it stays on topic the whole time and is clearly stated about the issues that animal shelters, expecialy no kill shelters have bringing in animals every day.
This video was very good, the claim said that animal shelters are good for the coummunity and that the government should be funding the animal shelters to support them. The sources the group used were well known and were able to give good responces to the questions the group asked. The group was able to support their claim by using ethos when interviewing the one lady from The Max fund because she says its hard to be a no kill shelter when they dont have the funding to expand their facility, and be able to accept more animals and treat them for the conditions they may have. The technology that was used was used well and made the video run smoothly. The video helped convince the audience that the animal shelters need more funding and that the government should do that.
This Video was very well made. the claim this video made was that animal shelters help the coummunity, therefore should be funded for by the Government. This video stresses that no kill shelters need to be government funded because they need to be constantly expanding to contain all the animals that are living there. This video had very reliable sources, That are very well known. The only downfall this video had was the person interveiwing was sometimes hard to understand. This video was very convincing and made the audience feel for the claim.
I really liked this video. The claim was easy to understand, which was that shelters, especially no kill ones, need to be funded by government. The no kill shelters have trouble with all the expenses, since they dont kill the animals over crowding is a problem. The video had credible sources that explained some of the shelters problems. This group used ethos which helped get their point across. By using that, it made the video run smoothly between interviews.
The claim of this video is that it is best to have no kill animal shelters because then those animals can be given more chances at a better life and in shelter that euthanize animals those animals lives are being taken away just so that another animal can be in there and this is why there should be more government funding to no kill shelters. The people they interviewed were chosen well because Ms. Gurian has an animal that comes from a no kill shelter and had to go throw the process of adopting. Also Chelsea Manschot from the Max Fund was very informative on how a no kill shelter actually work and how they are usually in debt by 10,000 to 20,000 dollars in debt after each month. They connected the evidence by tell facts like how there is only 11 registered no kill shelters in all of Colorado. They used their camera and computer as a form of technology to create this video. The video was engaging and kept my attention and it wasn’t choppy either, it flowed throughout the video. It was well put together.
The claim was that animal shelters should receive funding from the government. the evidence used to support this was that the max fund i consistently in debt by 10,000 dollars or more. this is due to the fact that it is a non profit organization and that they have to provide the money for animals to be given the necessary surgery or just a bowl of food and water. This video was very informational and very intriguing.
This was a very good video. The claim of this video was very clear made about how animal shelters should receive government funding. The evidence supported their claim very well. The evidence was that government fundings would help the animal shelters get a better facility with more money. The questions in this video helped to support the claim by how it would be a better place for the animals. The reasoning used Pathos. It connected the claim and evidence together. The sound could have been a little bit better but that’s okay. The editing done on it was very well done.
This was a well put together video. The claim is that animal shelters are good if they are no kill shelters. So that the animals that are in the shelter can get a second chance at a better life. The evidence supports the claim very well.The questions also helped support the claim and how some of the goverment money should go to giving these animals a second chance.
This video waz alright. The claim was well put out and precis because they stated it very prefectly and clearly with the interviews. The clame waz for the animal shelters to have more support by the government and famliys to adopt a homeless animal. Also they showed both sides of the points of view which is great because they got the audience thinkig about a solution to the problem. This group did a good job!
This video was really good, the claim they made is animal shelters should be funded by the Government. Which means the government should donate and provide money to help support an animal shelter. Some evidence that supported their claim was pathos because the Max Fund has been in debt at any given time about 10,000 dollars or more. The reasoning that helped connect the evident to the claim wasn’t really expressed in a clear way. I think they did a good job, and the video was well presented. I think this video was enjoyable to watch. The way the video was cut was perfect and very easy to see that they worked really hard on it. The documentary was easy to watch and very engaging it kept my interest very well. GOOD JOB!
ReplyDeleteThe video was awesome. The claim was that animal shelters should receive government funding. the evidence was that it would help them have bigger & better facilities. The reasoning is pathos because they try to get people on their side talking about animals. The video flowed really well, and the interviews from distant types of people really helped with the video. The facts about animal shelters also helped with understanding the system a bit better.
ReplyDeleteThis video was very good! The claim presented was clear and precise. The claim was that animal shelters should receive government funding.The evidence reported is that in the interview she asks certain questions that support the claim. There was reasoning shown because different people were interviewed. The different point of views are shown. The technology was most deffinitely used in a very affective way. The microphone could have maybe been a little bit louder. This documentary was very engaging. I think that just the sound should be fixed so it is louder. This video appeals to logos.
ReplyDeleteThe digital documetary about animal shelters had interviews to show valid points to express the claim of, the government should fund non kill animal shelters. If they got more funding they could expand the shelters to fit more animals and be able to not have to euthanize the animals. They used ethos when interviewing the expert women that works at the max fund animal shelter. She said how its tough to be a no kill shelter because they help all animals and it can be costly. If the government funded the shelters they could do much better and save more animals. the documentary used interviews well to give information from real live people in the animal sheltering industry. it was tasteful and informative.
ReplyDeletejamie akens
This video was very informational and shows the use ethos and logos by inerviewing the no kill shelter lady and the others. this vid also claimed that the no kill shelters should have government funding. this video was one of the best video ive seen so far.
ReplyDeleteThere claim is that animal shelters are good for the community and should receive more government funding to help support the shelters. They used a viable source that supports animal shelters and adopted a Chihuahua from the Max found no kill shelter. They also interviewed someone that works at the max found animal shelter and said that they need more money so that they can be able to give that animal the second chance. They need the government to help fund these shelters because its is expensive to take care of animals. The average cost for an animals surgery is from about 800-2000 dollars. With help from the government they can build more non kill shelters for the communities. The technology used in this documentary was used in an effective way. The only bad thing about it was that it was sometimes hard to understand what the speaker was saying. The documentary was very convincing in getting the audience to agree with having the government support the shelters, along with the video being polished and filled with facts and reasoning to support the claim.
ReplyDeleteThis video was very well put together it useds the opinions of everyone from the no kill animal shelters to the people that have adopted pets from them. it clearly states the claim that there should be more government funding for animal shelters, expecialy the no kill ones because they have to make room for new animals every day plus pay for the food and the medical bills of bring pets into vets when theyre sick or have any issues physicaly. very well put together with good support on the issues. it stays on topic the whole time and is clearly stated about the issues that animal shelters, expecialy no kill shelters have bringing in animals every day.
ReplyDeleteThis video was very good, the claim said that animal shelters are good for the coummunity and that the government should be funding the animal shelters to support them. The sources the group used were well known and were able to give good responces to the questions the group asked. The group was able to support their claim by using ethos when interviewing the one lady from The Max fund because she says its hard to be a no kill shelter when they dont have the funding to expand their facility, and be able to accept more animals and treat them for the conditions they may have. The technology that was used was used well and made the video run smoothly. The video helped convince the audience that the animal shelters need more funding and that the government should do that.
ReplyDeleteThis Video was very well made. the claim this video made was that animal shelters help the coummunity, therefore should be funded for by the Government. This video stresses that no kill shelters need to be government funded because they need to be constantly expanding to contain all the animals that are living there. This video had very reliable sources, That are very well known. The only downfall this video had was the person interveiwing was sometimes hard to understand. This video was very convincing and made the audience feel for the claim.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this video. The claim was easy to understand, which was that shelters, especially no kill ones, need to be funded by government. The no kill shelters have trouble with all the expenses, since they dont kill the animals over crowding is a problem. The video had credible sources that explained some of the shelters problems. This group used ethos which helped get their point across. By using that, it made the video run smoothly between interviews.
ReplyDeleteThe claim of this video is that it is best to have no kill animal shelters because then those animals can be given more chances at a better life and in shelter that euthanize animals those animals lives are being taken away just so that another animal can be in there and this is why there should be more government funding to no kill shelters. The people they interviewed were chosen well because Ms. Gurian has an animal that comes from a no kill shelter and had to go throw the process of adopting. Also Chelsea Manschot from the Max Fund was very informative on how a no kill shelter actually work and how they are usually in debt by 10,000 to 20,000 dollars in debt after each month. They connected the evidence by tell facts like how there is only 11 registered no kill shelters in all of Colorado. They used their camera and computer as a form of technology to create this video. The video was engaging and kept my attention and it wasn’t choppy either, it flowed throughout the video. It was well put together.
ReplyDeleteThe claim was that animal shelters should receive funding from the government. the evidence used to support this was that the max fund i consistently in debt by 10,000 dollars or more. this is due to the fact that it is a non profit organization and that they have to provide the money for animals to be given the necessary surgery or just a bowl of food and water. This video was very informational and very intriguing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very good video. The claim of this video was very clear made about how animal shelters should receive government funding. The evidence supported their claim very well. The evidence was that government fundings would help the animal shelters get a better facility with more money. The questions in this video helped to support the claim by how it would be a better place for the animals. The reasoning used Pathos. It connected the claim and evidence together. The sound could have been a little bit better but that’s okay. The editing done on it was very well done.
ReplyDeleteThis was a well put together video. The claim is that animal shelters are good if they are no kill shelters. So that the animals that are in the shelter can get a second chance at a better life. The evidence supports the claim very well.The questions also helped support the claim and how some of the goverment money should go to giving these animals a second chance.
ReplyDeleteThis video waz alright. The claim was well put out and precis because they stated it very prefectly and clearly with the interviews. The clame waz for the animal shelters to have more support by the government and famliys to adopt a homeless animal. Also they showed both sides of the points of view which is great because they got the audience thinkig about a solution to the problem. This group did a good job!
ReplyDelete