In "Excerpt from Marine Mammals in Captivity" and "Excerpt from What Zoo Critics Don't Understand," the authors present arguments about whether or not animals should be kept in captivity. What claims does each author make? What evidence do the authors use to support their claims? Which author's argument is more convincing? Use details from both excerpts to support your response.

Explanation:

"Excerpt from Marine Mammals in Captivity" by The Humane Society of the United States claims that marine animals such as Whales are naturally suitable for the open sea, and thus should not be confined.

The author provided evidence from findings that show that been kept in captivity is "the probable cause of dorsal fin collapse."

While in "Excerpt from What Zoo Critics  Don ’t Understand " by Jack Hanna, the author claims that leaving animals in confinement (like a zoo) may be considered the safest place for them instead of the sending into the wild.

To support his claims, he stated some of the challenges animals may face if exposed to the wild, such as, "habitat loss, poaching, severe weather, and war."

In all, we can conclude that the second author (Jack Hanna) seems to be more convincing based on the evidence he provided which can be applied to several wild animals.

what makes a hero is someone who tries and acres and then heps to save people

i know 2 is c.

i'm leaning towards a for 1.