This is my rewritten copy.

1. For a very long time, people have been interested in animals. They give us opportunities for research; they are very important in the economy of some countries; and most vital of all, (unfortunately for the animals), we use them as food. This helps us to live. But, do we care about animals? Let us take a look at the practice of keeping animals in zoos.

2. On the one hand, animals in zoos receive professional medical care, which is unavailable in their natural environment. For example, if any animal becomes ill, there will always be a Veterinary Surgeon to help. Furthermore, a zoo is a safe place for animals, especially endangered species. For instance, some species which used to be in the wild are now found only in zoos.

3. On the other hand, there are also many arguments against keeping animals in zoos. Firstly, it�s very difficult to recreate the animal�s natural habitat. I think that the most frequent problem with zoos is that they cannot provide the amount of space that the animal has in the wild. For example, lions, which normally live in huge grasslands and forests, must often live in a small cage. That must be terrifying for them. Secondly, animals in zoos often appear to suffer from stress. Just imagine what the animals must experience when the zoo is situated in a large city � lots of noise, polluted air, and people walking everywhere. These factors must make living in a zoo, a nightmare for animals.

4. To sum up, there are some arguments in favour of keeping animals in zoos, but in my opinion, the arguments against are much stronger. We should leave Nature alone, because she doesn�t need us. But we need her!

�

Les did an excellent job, but I have a few disagreements with his corrections:

 

2.  On the other hand, animals in zoos receive professional medical care  (no comma, because "professional" is modifying "medical")

 

...there will always be a Veterinary Surgeon to help. (word order)

 

3. ... I think that the most frequent problem with zoos is that they cannot provide   (no comma separating the subject of a sentence from the verb)

 

Bruce 

Les�Douglas�

One question to satisfy my own own curiosity:

 

Why capitalize "Veterinary Surgeon" and "Nature"?

 

 

Cheers,

Douglas

It �s personal to me. but� �Veterinary Surgeon �, (British English),�tells the reader that it is an important part of the text. In addition, it is a job title.

�

�Nature �, is the personification of �Mother Nature �. It is her name. It is the same as �Mr. Sun �, or �Our Lady, the�Moon �.

�

Of course, if you wish, you can omit the�upper-case letters. But the author is trying to convince the audience�of his/her argument, and�so uses �literary tricks � to do this, by writing eloquently.

�

Les

�

Thanks Les,

 

I often do the same with Nature, I was curious as to your motivations.  I �m not fully sold on the Veterinary Surgeon though. :)

 

Cheers,

Douglas

Thank you, Douglas:

Example sentence.

 

 

(The German Language capitalises EVERY noun. Possibly, German speakers believe that, typographically, the noun should be more visible than other words in the sentence. Or possibly not!)   

Les 

Douglas,

It �s just a step up from capitalizing a title. We don �t capitalize it when we see a doctor, but if it is Doctor Smith, we do. Les is just eliminating the middleman, just increasing the respect a little. It �s not standard, but I think it �s acceptable.

 

Bruce 

Apropos capitalization: in the business/engineering world I work in it is becoming more and more common to capitalize titles the same as a sentence (first letter)--it drives me nuts. 

 

Les-You are right about Germans captalizing all nouns, it�s an on-going problem for my students to break that habit when writing in English.

 

Cheers,

Douglas