Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Firstly, proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals. That point is true, however, animal testing could be fraught with pitfalls. For example, the sleeping pill thalidomide in the 1950s made 10,000 infants have serious malformations, although it was tested on animals before officially publishing. It means that some types of medicinal ingredients that animals can absorb could have negative consequences on the human body and vice versa, which proves that testing on animals successfully does not ensure human safety, making us more subjective about potential problems. As a result, animal experiments would be in vain.
Secondly, people inclining to support animal testing emphasize that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism because it could be easily seen the results of a medicinal method which impacts on a whole living body with complex internal organ systems. This view seems persuasive at first, but based on scientific and technical advancements nowadays, humans do not need a complete living organism to prove whether that medical treatment works positively on humans and animals or not. Research has shown that, by testing on genetic or visceral samples using biotechnology and with computers, scientists completely indicate the potential success and risk of medicine. In fact, it is actually more economical to test on liver or lung samples than on animals according to Humane Society International, reducing the prodigal national budget. Therefore, testing on animals is not necessary.
Finally, advocates of animal experiments claim that establishing strict regulations could prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories. However, experimental activities would bring pain to animals, that those strict regulations do not reduce the pain they are forced to experience, which are still considered as animal mistreatment. The animals also have emotions and have the right to choose to live naturally as humans. Therefore, the use of animals for research purposes should be minimized as much as possible or considered carefully before any implementation. Instead, researchers can call for human volunteering to test medicines with financial and health benefits such as salary or free medical treatment for life, increasing the morality for animals.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-15 | hanhkatori2402 | 56 | view |
- It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening Do you agree or disagree 78
- People in many countries are spending less time with their family What are the reasons and effects of this 78
- Some people think students should study the science of food and how to prepare it Others think students should spend time on other important subjects Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
- Young people are now spending more and more time and money following fashion trends What is your opinion Is this a positive or negative development 84
- Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life saving treatments for both humans and animals that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism and that strict regulations prevent the mistreat 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, for example, in fact, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2034.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 361.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63434903047 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99035570954 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592797783934 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 645.3 506.74238477 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.0837594121 49.4020404114 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.6 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0666666667 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.4 7.06120827912 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.38176352705 68% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.534647228923 0.244688304435 219% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.170096336734 0.084324248473 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125113924533 0.0667982634062 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.343890559584 0.151304729494 227% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00614533481835 0.056905535591 11% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.4159519038 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.12 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 78.4519038076 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.