I'm trying to form an arguement based on the following poem does anyone have any ideas on how I could do that effectively?
TO HELP THE MONKEY CROSS THE RIVER,
which he must
cross, by swimming, for fruit and nuts,
to help him
I sit, with my rifle, on a platform
high in a tree, same side of the river
as the hungry monkey.how does this assist
him? When he swims for it
I look first up river: predators move faster with
the current than against it.
If a crocodile is aimed from up river to eat the monkey
and an anaconda from down river burns
with the same ambition, I do
the math, algebra, angles, rate-of-monkey
croc and snake-speed, and if, if
it looks like the anaconda or the croc
will reach the monkey
before he attains the river’s far bank,
I raise my rifle and fire
one, two, three, even four times, into the river
just behind the monkey
to hurry him up a little.
Shoot the snake, the crocodile?
They’re just doing their jobs,
but the monkey, the monkey
has little hands, like a child’s
and the smart ones, in a cage, can be taught to smile.
Well I think the poem has a good meaning and is a joy to read. To me the writer is trying to show his love for the monkey but also make a point that it's not the anaconda's or crocodile's fault that they want to eat the monkey they just need food and the monkey isn't doing anything wrong because he wants food so instead of hurting any of the animals the guy uses his gun to scare the monkey into moving faster to prevent it from getting eaten. How could I make my opinion a valued argument?
To form an argument based on this poem, you can explore the themes, symbols, and imagery it presents. Here are a few potential ideas:
1. Nature's Balance: The poem highlights the delicate balance of the natural world. You can argue that the poet is illustrating the predator-prey relationship and the necessity of humans intervening in certain situations. The argument could focus on how humans have a responsibility to protect vulnerable species when they can.
2. Ethical Dilemma: The poem raises an ethical dilemma by discussing whether it is right for the speaker to potentially harm other animals to protect a monkey. You can argue whether the speaker's actions are justified or if there are alternative, more ethical solutions to ensure the monkey's safety.
3. Human Intervention: Focus on the idea that human intervention in nature can have both positive and negative consequences. Explore the speaker's role in assisting the monkey and the potential repercussions of their actions. Argue whether it is appropriate for humans to involve themselves in the predators' natural behavior.
4. Empathy and Compassion: Analyze the poem from the perspective of empathy and compassion towards all creatures. Discuss the moral implications of the speaker's choices and their perspective on different animals' lives.
Remember, an effective argument is well-supported with evidence from the poem and references to its specific lines or stanzas. Use textual analysis to support your argument and connect it back to the themes and ideas presented in the poem.
What argument do you want to make?
I think your argument is a good one.
You may find these sites helpful.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html
http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/students/types%20of%20essays/ARGUMENTATIVE%20ESSAY.htm