Should animals have rights?

Authors Avatar

English coursework: Should Animals Have Rights?

 

Good morning fellow ladies and gentlemen, as part of our gathering here today, we will be talking about animal rights, why they should have rights and why animal testing should be banned. As humans we cannot take the pain of being injected with dangerous chemicals or being blinded as part of a lab test. It’s painful and cruel leaving a question mark on why we do it to animals. Today, I as ‘…’ , the main speaker for the Animal Rights Organization, also known as the ARO, will talk about why there should be a stop to this.

Imagine every 3 seconds I talk an animal is to die; well clearly that is what is happening. What’s more is that these 3 seconds an animal is to die it is to happen in a lab. The experiments on the animals are fully legal, not to mention any possible thing could happen in the lab. They could be brutally poisoned or even blinded. They may not be given food or water in that time, while the experiments could paralyze them or permanently damage their skins. The result of these experiments are very old fashioned and inaccurate. The chances of the lab test failing is more than 75%.

Join now!

Our understanding of important things such as diseases has been dangerously misled while at the same time delaying progress of medicine due to testing them on animals first.

To find out the result of a household or agricultural product we test them on animals, in which we as humans miserably fail in. The United Kingdom tends to boast about its rules on animal experiments, even though testing for household products on animals is a 100% legal.

We do experiments which fail miserably for obvious reasons such as the experiment where we use the rabbit because of its eye, even though ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

Poor expression renders parts of this speech as being unintelligible. An example from paragraph three being… “our understanding of… diseases has been dangerously misled… decaying progress of medicine due to testing them on animals” which is a concept difficult to understand. To remedy this, work to a Point Evidence Explain structure. We could alter the point to… “Animal testing has impeded upon the advancement of medicine, as in the famous example of the London morphine disaster (this is fictitious) in which hundreds of people died. This is significant as results gained from animal experiments led directly to the deaths of many individuals.” This response is an example of how spell-check cannot be used as a substitute for proof-reading. For example, although “a new programmed known as PETA” has correct spelling, there is clearly a misuse of past-tense verb. In addition to this, numbers such as “3 seconds” are used extensively however it would be better to use figures when referring to numbers – stating “three seconds” renders the response as being far more sophisticated. The conclusion is disappointing; statements such as “hopefully, many of us… have understood what I said” is extremely patronising. This should be changed to “hopefully, many of us… have understood the importance of my given points” which does not suggest that the audience is unable to understand plain English. Furthermore, mild repetition, such as “hopefully” (x2) in the conclusion and “miserably” (x2) in paragraphs four and five hinder the fluency of the response, as the reader asserts that the candidate is not able to deploy a wide range of vocabulary. Replacing one the above with “it is my intention that” and “comprehensively” would show a greater command of English. Despite this, there are a few examples of linguistic devices used effectively, as in the capitalised “IF” to reinforce the element of probability and the imperative “imagine every [three] seconds” in paragraph two which shows a good control of the audience. Furthermore, contrasting emotive language can be observed in paragraph six with “cruelly punishing these innocent animals”. This is particularly effective as it accentuates the oppressor/ oppressed combination within the response. The candidate clearly has potential to produce coursework to a very high standard. Yet this particular example requires extensive re-writing to achieve this.

The candidate uses a number of examples and statistics, such as “every three seconds an animal is to die” and “a new programme such as PETA”. These are effective as they create a more professional tone for the speech and they are also useful in persuading the audience of given points (Argue, Persuade, Advise). However, these examples could have been explored in greater detail. The candidate does not even explain what PETA stands for, thus reducing the effectiveness of these examples as, for all we know, PETA could be a group which has little significance with regards to animal testing. Technical terms such as this should always be explained for the benefit of non-specialist audiences. Were the audience a group of expert scientists, such explanations would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, the content lacks organisation – each paragraph is barely distinguishable from the next. Paragraphs should be used to introduce new points within an essay and these points should be summarised in the introduction. For example, “in this essay I will explore government legislation relating to lab-testing, ethical implications and financial factors”. Then go on to present these three different issues in three different paragraphs, allowing the reader to better decipher points being made.

The response follows typical conventions of a speech, such as the “good morning” greeting and the closing conclusion. This is important as it instantly makes the marker aware of the spoken context of the text, allowing marks to be allocated accordingly. However, the title of this coursework is “should animals have rights”, yet the candidate only discusses lab-testing. This is therefore indicative of an essay which has reasonable depth but sub-standard breadth. For example, the issue of deforestation could have been included under the guise of an animal’s right to keep its own habitat. A more appropriate title for this response would be something to the effect of ‘lab testing – right or wrong?’