Compare the evidence in these lines with that presents in lines 26-32 in” wild animals aren’t pets” how are the two sets of evidence alike and different.

Each piece uses certain wording to try to pull us over to their side. In ‘Let People own Exotic Pets,’ some loaded language is used, such as “If society overreacts and bans exotics because of actions of a few deranged individuals, then we need to ban kids, as that is the only way to totally stop child abuse.” The article,‘Wild Animals aren't Pets’ gives a short notice, “Or how potentially tragic.” Both of these are effective because they make us imagine how “tragic,” and what it would be like for kids to be “banned.”

Each author made a claim, and each one argued about one topic: whether we should be able to own exotic pets or not. The commentary ‘Let People own Exotic Animals’ states that “Responsible private ownership of exotic animals should be legal if animal welfare is taken care of.” On the other hand, the article ‘Wild Animals aren't Pets’ states that “We’re not suggesting that people who own these animals are cruel. Many surely love them. But public safety, common sense and compassion for animals all dictate the same conclusion.” The authors do, in fact, include enough evidence to support the claim.

I hope this helps! I have the same article, so I know what to write.]