The essay “It’s a Dog-Eat-Dog world” approaches the discrimination as a result of weak and strong individuals’ coexistence within any species. The natural division based on weakness criteria is extrapolated to human society. There is a spectacular example of a wolves’ pack in the introduction, leading to the thesis statement: “… weakness is accepted, not by any other animal species, but by the human race. The question though, is that actually true? Do we as people actually accept weakness?” (“Dog-Eat-Dog” 1). This statement in a form of rhetorical question opens the discussion, contrasting standards of modern society with natural instincts. The discussion revolves around the plot of “A Class Divided”, an experimental attempt of artificial segregation in order to induce the discrimination.
The form and content of the thesis statement offers diverse possibilities for author to explore. A reader would anticipate scenes of weak people being humiliated throughout the course of history. Contrastingly, author might want to elaborate on truly spiritual examples, praising the human race for its noble tolerance of weakness. It would be particularly interesting to discover how author links the issue of weakness to discrimination activities against perfectly strong people. The thesis statement, in essence, intrigues the reader and does not place strict limitations for the author to comply with.
For the most part, author has chosen to emphasize the “animal side” of people’s behavior. There is no evidence whatsoever to support people’s acceptance of weak or to suggest that such acceptance ever existed. There are number of catching examples along the arguments’ development, either illuminating human’s universal readiness to accept an undeserved privileges or demonstrating the prejudice of any imaginable form. Author recognizes certain improvements in modern society, but the overall essay’s tone is rather skeptical and a bit indecisive.
The essay could benefit from becoming more focused, concentrating not so much on a weakness issue itself but on the particular discriminative consequence of any physical characteristic. As the author admits to be an advocate for American Pit Bull Terriers, it may be a good idea to widen the definition of “weak” so that example would fit. Pit Bulls are by no means weak; nevertheless, according to the author, they suffer from discriminative prejudice. The number of discrimination aspects that author has touched could be cut down, leaving space for more detailed analysis of those remained.
Highly Unorthodox and Imaginative Arguments
What is really appealing about the essay is that author employs highly unorthodox and imaginative arguments. The math genius outperformed seems to be quoted from real life. There is an exceptionally enjoyable part regarding the scope of potential discrimination victims: “Anyone and everyone can be discriminated against. If you are homosexual, if you are a devout Christian, if you are an American Pit Bull Terrier, if you are rich, if you are poor, if you are overweight or you are skinny, if you are black or you are white” (“Dog-Eat-Dog” 2). Very bold and accurate statement, and there is too much truth about it.
Experiment of Jane Elliott
One aspect of the essay that could be improved concerns the experiment of Jane Elliott, documented in “A Class Divided”. It would be practical to support the arguments’ development throughout the essay with experiment’s results and conclusions. The fact that discrimination impairs the abilities could have been supplemented to author’s math test scenario. Speculations about instinctive cutting of the weakest link to ensure the survival would look great in contrast with other experimental facts. Such facts, for instance, show that “weak links” actually live up to others’ expectations of them and immediately cease to be weak once the pressure is lifted. Overall, if these suggested improvements will be incorporated in otherwise thorough work, the essay could stand a chance for the top grade.