Animal Testing Should Be Stopped, This I Believe.

Authors Avatar

Animal Testing Should Be Stopped - This I Believe

A few months ago, I took a biology course at a university. During one of the lectures, the professor put up an x-ray photo of a lab rat who had undergone an experiment and had a brain tumour that covered half of its head. One of the students exclaimed, “That is such a big brain tumour!” His tone was not sympathetic but fascinated. No one else expressed concern for the animal either. Later on, the same student told me over lunch that he was furious at his mom because she had stepped on his cat. Most people understand that cruelty to animals is wrong, so why is animal testing, which is undoubtedly cruel, still so widely accepted? I believe that animal testing should be stopped.

Imagine you, your family and friends being forced to ingest lethal chemicals until half of you die and the other half are then killed and dissected. Animals who have been experimented on suffer: diarrhea, convulsions, loss of muscle control, bleeding from the eyes, nose and mouth, internal bleeding, bleeding stomach ulcers, vomiting, respiratory problems and in general, complete agony. Often, they don't even suffer 'for a good cause' such as a substantial medical advancement. They suffer for trivial things such as ‘new and improved’ shampoo and washing powder. Doesn’t it seem unreasonable to put a living animal through so much pain for something we can do without?

Join now!

Some people argue that animal testing is necessary to create new medicines to cure diseases. However, is it really humane to smash a dog’s head with a hammer even if it could verify whether a newly discovered medicine to stop blood clotting really works? Hurting others, even animals, in such a cruel way for our own benefit is selfish, yet still some people claim ‘better them than us’. These people, besides being inhumane, are wrong. Animal testing is a scientific hoax and doesn’t help but instead harms the development of medicine. There is so much that is different between ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

This essay is written in a rather gushing style and comes across as something rather like a rant. Generally the spelling and grammar is good, although there is room for improvement in places; for example the concluding sentence is jumbled and needs revising.

There is a lot of vitriol here and ad hominem attacks on those who support animal testing. This should always be avoided, because, firstly, it isn't persuasive, and secondly, it comes across as extremely juvenile to the marker. It is better to fairly discuss your opponent's position fairly, and then present an argument to counter that, for example, "while proponents of animal testing often argue ... this is incorrect because..." Whilst in an exam situation a candidate can 'make up' some facts in their essays, this is not appropriate for coursework, and the candidate has included some extremely questionable facts here to support their argument. The candidate has presented some interesting arguments, e.g. using Opren as an example of when animal testing can go wrong, and has used some devices well, e.g. rhetorical questions. However these are often lost behind what could be described as ranting. Using statistics and using emotive language can be extremely persuasive, however a candidate must be very careful to seem reasonable and measured in their argumentation. The goal of a persuasive essay is not to attack your opponent, but to persuade them.

There are some good features in this essay; it does manage to present some interesting arguments, however its failure to engage constructively with the opposing view is a major weakness. It fails to define “animal testing” in the first paragraph, but instead opens with a personal anecdote. It is best to set out clearly in your first paragraph what exactly you will be discussing, and then tell the reader your opinion, backed up with a general summary of what your arguments will be. There is a major lack of organization here as the candidate does not even distinguish between commercial and medical testing until the third paragraph, and there is a major deviation from the subject of animal testing to a discussion of vegetarianism. This is completely irrelevant, and undermines the candidate's argument. With proper planning for your essay, these pitfalls can be avoided.