As robotics becomes more advanced and life-like, there has been discussion on whether robots can replace real animals for pets. Write an argumentative essay in which you take a position on whether or not robots can replace real animals as pets. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the “Robotic Pets” passage set. (the file attached)

Be sure not to copy word by word essasys becuase that would be plagiarism

Explanation:

This took me like an hour I really hope this helps sorry I couldn't answer sooner.

Explanation:

Prompt: Can robots can replace real animals for pets? 

Intro: Have you ever thought about what it would be like if you had a robot dog or cat? Well I have. I honestly do not like the idea of having a robot for a pet, I mean even if I loved the pet it would never love me back. In the passage, Robotic Pets, the author explains what it would be like to have a robot pet. However the question still remains, whether or not we can replace real animals with robots pets.

Body 1: Here I will be explaining how in some ways we can actually replace real animals with robots for pets. In source one it says, "The researchers found that loneliness scores decreased in the Paro group, but increased in the activities group" and "Additionally, at the retirement home where the study was conducted, an activities coordinator frequently brought her real pet dog to the facilities to interact with the residents. The researchers noticed that the residents touched and interacted with Paro more than they touched the real dog." This shows how in an elderly home, people might be scared of real animals, and to support this it also says, "Often residents were unable to talk to or touch the dog because the dog could choose who it interacted with, whereas the robot could be put on the lap of all residents and would respond to them.” Another study at the University of Washington revealed that people in nursing homes preferred robotic pets because they would not have to worry about them if they had to be admitted to the hospital or that they couldn't take care of a living pet." So as it says in the text robot pets are more convenient to own. As to how they cant choose who they would rather interact with, instead they are put into the lap of the residents and would also respond to the elderly.

Body 2: Now for how in other ways robots can never replace real animals as pets. In source 2 it mentions, "It’s the knowledge of conscious two-way giving that makes the pet-owner relationship meaningful." This sentence means that, even if we love the robots there is really no way they can actually love us back. In source 2 it also says, "Unless we want to get into the question of whether a robot will ever be capable of a conscious experience, that kind of giving is something a robot can’t supply, no matter how well it imitates the outward appearance of life." This backs up my statement up above, how robots will never truly have a conscious experience and can never actually have feelings.

Conclusion: Robots may or may not actually replace real animals as pets. What do you think, now that you have read the good things and the bad things about replacing robots for pets, do you think you would be ok with replacing real animals with robots? Now next time your parents take you somewhere, ask them if you can get a pet. This may be your only chance too have a real animal as a pet!

explanation:

d the picture of the plane

the sentence that contains a restrictive clause is a.they decided to meet where the band was performing

explanation:

a restrictive clause is also known as an essential clause