Question

1. on page 87, orwell writes: clover \knew that, even as things were, they were far better off than they had been in the days of jones.\ evaluate clovers claim and explain why you agree or disagree.

Explanation:

To evaluate Clover's claim about Animal Farm (by Orwell), we analyze the conditions of the animals under Jones (human farmer) vs. under the pigs' rule. Under Jones, animals were exploited (overworked, underfed, no autonomy), but under the pigs, they faced new oppressions (e.g., Napoleon's dictatorship, altered commandments, inequality). However, Clover's claim focuses on material conditions: under Jones, they labored for human profit with little reward; under the pigs, they had more food security (initially), no human exploitation, and self-governance (though corrupted later). Yet, the "far better off" is debatable—while they escaped human tyranny, they entered animal tyranny. But Clover, loyal, sees the end of human exploitation as a gain. To agree: Jones' regime was exploitative (animals as commodities), while under the pigs, they controlled their labor (even if misused). To disagree: the pigs' rule became oppressive (e.g., Boxer's fate, reduced rations for others), so conditions worsened. The key is whether "better off" is material or ideological. Clover emphasizes escaping human bondage, so agreeing hinges on that contrast.

Answer:

To evaluate Clover’s claim, we analyze the animals’ conditions under Mr. Jones (human rule) and under the pigs’ leadership in Animal Farm:

1. Context of “Better Off”

Clover’s claim centers on escaping human exploitation (e.g., overwork, starvation, and commodification) under Jones. Under Jones, animals labored solely for human profit (e.g., selling their products, slaughtering), with little reward or autonomy. Under the pigs, they gained:

• Self - governance: They controlled the farm (e.g., “All animals are equal” initially, no human masters).
• Material security (early on): Food production improved (e.g., harvests increased), and they avoided human - imposed cruelty (e.g., no arbitrary slaughter).

2. Agreement with Clover’s Claim

While the pigs’ rule later became oppressive (e.g., Napoleon’s dictatorship, inequality), Clover’s perspective focuses on the end of human tyranny. Even with the pigs’ corruption, the animals:

• Were no longer “slaves” to humans (e.g., no human - driven slaughter, more control over their labor).
• Had a sense of purpose (building a “free” animal society), which Clover values over Jones’ exploitation.

3. (Optional) Disagreement (for balance)

If we consider the pigs’ tyranny (e.g., Boxer’s death, reduced rations for non - pigs, altered commandments), conditions worsened. But Clover, loyal to the revolution’s ideals, prioritizes escaping human rule—so her claim holds in the context of rejecting human exploitation.

In conclusion, Clover’s claim is valid from her perspective: The animals were “far better off” escaping human bondage, even if their new society later failed. Thus, one can agree with Clover’s claim because the end of human exploitation (a core evil) made their lives meaningfully better, despite later corruption.