| Arguments that support the author's main premise |
|---|
 | However, as Smith states, dolphins, whales and seals can be be viewed in the wild at a number of places on the Australian coast. |
 | Moreover, dolphin and whale biology changes in marine park conditions. |
 | Furthermore, we should be promoting our beautiful natural environment to tourists and not the ugly concrete marine park venues. |
| Tourists come here to see our native wildlife in its natural environment and not to see it in cages and cement pools. |
| In addition, marine mammals in dolphin parks are trained and this means that their patterns of social behaviour are changed. |
| In fact, there are more places where they can be seen in the wild than places where they can be seen in captivity. |
| In addition, places where there are wild marine mammals do not charge an exorbitant entry fee - they are free. |
| Surveys of overseas tourists show that they come here for a variety of other reasons and not to visit places like Seaworld (The Age, Good Weekend 16.8.93). |
| Therefore research undertaken at marine parks is generally not reliable. |
| However, foreign tourists would still come to Australia if the parks were closed down. |
| They can usually see animals in those conditions in their own countries. |
| However, as Jones (1991) explains, park research is only useful for understanding captive animals and is not useful for learning about animals in the wild. |
| Their diets are different, they have significantly lower life spans and they are more prone to disease. |
| Moreover, most Australians would have to travel less to get to these locations than they would to get to the marine parks on the Gold Coast. |
