Why Cats Make Better Pets Than Dogs Analysis

587 Words3 Pages

Choosing a cat or a dog as a pet is depending on personal preference or purpose. Both animals can become a good companion in human’s life. In an essay titled “Why Cats Make Better Pets Than Dogs” Sean Curtis argues that cats are better pets than dogs because cats are low maintenance, quiet, and independent. He helps readers gain insights of a cat or a dog’s behaviors and habits, and bring awareness of their issues to a future cat or dog owner. This essay argues clearly with his points of view and successfully bring readers’ attention to dogs’ problems that a dog owner will meet and solve. In this essay, I will analyze why his argument is convincing. Curtis’ basic argument can be summarized as follows: 1. No sub-zero walks at 6 a.m.. 2. The poop is in one place. 3. [Thus, cats require less maintenance than dogs.] (from 1-2) 4. Cats do not bark. 5. Feed a cat once a day. 6. House guests are weary of dogs. 7. Thus, cats are better pets than dogs. (from 3-6) Curtis’ argument is valid, relevant, and strong for several reasons. First, Curtis has a valid deductive argument because the premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion. His premises in (1) and (2) that cats are not required to go for a walk, and they poop in one place are well reasoned. He …show more content…

His premises in (5) that cats can be fed once a day is unfair. In the Joseph Saling’s article “Feeding Tips for Dogs,” Melissa Carreker, DVM, owner of Leland Veterinary Clinic in Mableton, Ga states that, “Some dogs can handle their food being out all day.” So dogs can be fed once a day, not only cats. In addition, his argument in (6) that house guests are weary of annoying dogs is an example of the fallacy of questionable cause. He assumes that a dog assaults, licks, and jumps on the house guest. These situations would cause the house guest is unlikely to have a visit. But these evidence are not sufficient to support his

Show More
Open Document