Dogs have been "mans best friend" and great companions for years. They have been considered parts of people's families and provide endless love and loyalty. Unfortunately, many dogs do not end up in loving homes but instead find themselves in abusive situations or left in shelters. Many shelters are overpopulated and underfunded. However, the author of the article "Adopt Don't Shop" Sounds Good Until You See Who Benefits From It, tries to argue that this is all a scam and that shelters are actually just profiting off of the animals. There are thousands of animals in need of homes across the country, but breeders continue to breed dogs in order to profit off of them rather than do the right thing and help the dogs that are suffering.  The author of this article has a weak ethos that undermines their pathos, which creates an invalid argument. 

The author of this piece is not listed and that says a lot about their ethos. They come across as ignorant and judgmental throughout the whole piece. It is easy to assume that the author is a dog breeder and feels threatened by society turning away from "designer dogs". The factual information they provide is not completely accurate and it is clumping together all shelters as one rather than comparing them individually. Because the author never identifies himself or herself, it is hard to identify their validity. There is no way to determine if the author has any expertise on the matter. In addition, there are parts of the article that the author fake quotes people working in shelters and it is demeaning and undermines their intelligence. This can be perceived as insulting by the reader. 

The author does not have an effective argument because they do not provide valid evidence. There are comments from readers at the bottom of the article that agree that the author was wrong and clearly trying to manipulate people into purchasing dogs from breeders. The author states that dog abuse and neglect videos on the news are fake and all part of the scam. He or she writes, "First some trumped up charges about an owner of multiple animals is reported by an Animal Rights group or rogue "rescue" in search of some product to sell. An early morning raid / search and seizure occurs. Maybe a few staged videos are created for website viewing to make things look worse than they really are." They have no proof of this and are just grasping at straws in order to make their argument. In reality, these rescue groups are responsible for saving thousands of dogs and giving them a second chance at a happy life. 

The logos is very clear and the argument is obvious, even though it is not properly supported. This discredits the logos because although the argument is strongly stated, it has no supporting evidence that is proven. This piece is very opinionated and is clearly propaganda. The author does not do a good job at providing strong evidence in order to sway the reader into reconsidering their opinion. People are turning towards adoption now, so the author is trying to get readers to believe it is all a scam that is hurting dog breeders. The author is not accounting for all the shelters that are in fact rescuing animals from abusive homes and environments. Even though animal shelters bring the dogs in and then sell them, they are not earning large profits off of them. A lot of the money goes towards the care that the animal received while in the shelter or to care of the animals still in the shelters. Most animal shelters are underfunded but overpopulated so there is not any extra money being pocketed. Unfortunately, sometimes the shelters are forced to put the dogs down because they do not have the space or money to properly take care of them. If the shelters were simply out to make money, why would they kill some of their supply?

It seems like the author intended for the pathos of this article to make the reader angry. However, it makes the reader angry for the opposite reasons. The author was trying to get readers mad at the shelters and to turn them towards breeders. But instead it makes the reader angry and appalled at the false accusations made throughout the piece. It feels as though the author is speaking down to the reader throughout the whole piece and that they are trying to manipulate them. 

The Kairos of the article is very weak. The article was published on a website that is for a purebred breed of dogs that are extremely expensive. This makes the reader aware that it is coming from dog breeders. This weakens their argument even further. If the piece had been published by a more universal source, it could have been more credible. The piece would have been a lot more effective had it been written by someone who works in animal shelters.

Overall, the ethos of the article "Adopt Don't Shop" Sounds Good Until You See Who Really Benefits From It, is not strong and this weakens the whole piece. When the reader does not know whether or not they can trust the author, it makes it hard for them to take their opinion into consideration when forming their own. Because the pathos is not supported, the article is undermined even further. The author clearly intended to write a strong piece in hopes of getting people to reconsider adopting and in instead buying, but in the end they simply sounded bitter and angry. 

