The webpage contains a lot of positive points about animal testing, and there is a lot of persuasive language used which attempts to destroy the negative connotations for animal testing, such as how it is cruel and painful for the animals and yet there are some points which could be taken negatively. For example, there is a section about Lucette B. Wells, a
78 year old woman who had a heart valve replacement operation. The heart used was one belonging originally to a pig. “Lucette always remembered to thank the animals that had helped extend her life…”. It is hard to understand how a person thanked an animal that was already dead. The pig didn’t knowingly donate the heart valve to the woman, or let somebody know that is what it wanted. It was just done, without the pig having a choice. Also, the pig wasn’t named which is a vast difference to the pets treated as if they were a member of the family. Which brings forward the question what is the difference between that pig and the pets we hear about. The webpage is arguing for animal testing, so why is the pig treated as if it is just a heart valve and not an animal to be loved for life like Duke or Sabrina?
The second handout, the Animal Aid leaflet, showed a completely different side of animal testing. It emphasises the negative points and criticizes science to portray how bad it is.
Like the webpage there are a lot of persuasive words used, but the majority of the text is written in a way that will shock the reader. The leaflet describes the horrific, inhuman things done to animals in the name of research. An example of this is how on the first side, the main focus are the eyes of a wolf, with the words “It’s a crying shame.” emblazoned over the image. Lower down the image it states “Animals have their eyes surgically removed during vision experiments.”. The text plus the image evokes shock and anger, but the leaflet doesn’t give evidence to back up this claim.
This happens quite a lot during the information within this text. “In fact studies show that in only 5-25% of cases are the harmful effects of medicines correctly predicted by animal experiments.”. There is no information to back up this point, such as how the data was found out and 5-25% is quite a varied result.
In the last section of the second side, they talk about ways to explore cures without using animals, such are “careful monitoring of patients.”. This means they would be using a drug that hasn’t been tested on animals on humans, which to me, would be basically testing on humans. This is contradictory in the way that earlier on the phrase “All animals- human beings included..” was used. The leaflet is against animal testing, and they say humans are animals, so why test on humans?
Within the leaflet there is an inset which contains two pictures. Both are quite sad and heart-wrenching. The image of the monkey looks pained and upset. It also looks quite young and this evokes a feeling of guilt in people.
The last paragraph within the inset ,“You would not offer up your own dog or cat for vivisection. Please don’t stand by and let other animals suffer.”, is very emotive and draws out feelings from the reader. Most people with a pet would feel guilt and sorrow and may even be distressed at the idea. It’s a harsh phrase which ends with the reader feeling guilted into doing something. This is why the leaflet includes a box at the bottom giving examples of what the reader can do. I believe this is a marketing technique. Added so the group can gain support and continue fighting for what they believe in.
The two pieces of writing are quite similar in certain ways, and yet completely different in others. Both are emotive and use persuasive writing for their own use. Scientific terminology are used in both texts, yet the leaflet uses it out of context and doesn’t elaborate on the uses. It makes the reader believe there is no aim to the experiments, whereas the webpage explains the reasoning behind it.
The use of the terminology within the webpage promotes the point of the experiments being used for good and not just aimless suffering of animals, which is a subtle point the leaflet makes.
The scientific vocabulary also gives the webpage added credibility. A person is more likely to believe something when it has appropriate evidence behind it. Both texts use images to draw emotion from the reader, yet the webpage shows an image that is happy and positive whereas the leaflet shows images of horror in order to shock the reader.
Both texts want to get the reader on their side. They are both trying to persuade the reader to believe in their side of the argument. They want the reader to support them in what they are doing. In my opinion, they are doing that because they don’t want people fighting their view, or arguing with what they believe in.
