w1 Science Testing on Animals Due to an extensive testing and quality control phase in both the medical and cosmetic industries, there’s a considerable amount of animal laboratory product testing. It can’t be denied that the effectiveness and benefit of such testing is crucial in the development of new medicines and products.
First of all, a significant amount of every major medical advancement is attributable to experiments on animals. Since the beginning of scientific exploration, we’ve used animals to test ideas and products to help advance and preserve the human race. If it weren’t for these experiments, who knows what invaluable medicines and products might never have been developed?
Furthermore, if animals weren’t used for testing, we’d be forced to test new drugs on people instead. The idea of using humans to experiment with new medicines and products is an idea most people find unimaginable. Again, there would be very few people who would volunteer for such a task, and the consequences would be less testing, and consequently less discoveries and advancement.
Lastly, most experiments being done in medical testing are not actually painful to animals, and are therefore justified. Experiments where scientists apply lipstick to a rabbit, or try out a new shampoo and conditioner on its fur coat, could hardly be considered inhumane treatment. Ultimately, science is conducting these studies ethically and with the end goal to produce better medicines and products.
The reading passage presents the advantages of the testing of the new medicine and cosmetic products on animals and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor does not agree with this opinion and refutes each of the author’s reason.
First, the article states that medical advancement is a positive consequence of testing the new products on animals. The professor refutes this point by stating that the testing on animals is not relevant for the human safety’s point of view. He mentioned an article published by “Royal Journal for Medicine” in which is explained that medical evolution is not attributable to animal testing.
Second, the reading claims that if the drugs wouldn’t be tested on animals, they will have to be tested on humans and there are not too many people opened to these trials. The lecturer contends that this is not a valid point because the drugs and new products are tested on people anyway. Moreover, it is irrelevant for the human health if the product has been already tested on animals and it was proved to be safe for them. The same product might be harmful for the human body. According to the professor, the Food and Drug Administration Agency (FDA) revealed that 92 % of drugs which were demonstrated to be safe for the animals failed when they were tested on humans.
Third , the article asserts that testing of new medical products is not painful to the animals. The professor opposes this point by saying that according to the New Act of Animal Welfare, the animals involved in testing process can be burned, shocked, restrained and starved. In the professor’s opinion is hardly to believe that these kind of treatments do not cause pain to the animals. In addition to that, the gain in medical advancement is not significantly enough to compensate the animals’ exposure to cruel treatments.
- w1 Professors benefit from appearing on TV. 80
- TOEFL integrated writing Chevalier de Seingalt 90
- It is better to marry someone who is simmilar to you , rather than someone who is different from you. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 80
- Do you agree or desagree: "A university education should always include an internship or some type of work experience" Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 90
- Many people believe that it is very important to make large amounts of money, while others are satisfied to earn a comfortable living. Analyze each viewpoint and take a stand. Give specific reasons for your position. 80
is not relevant for the human safety’s point of view.
is not relevant for the point of view about human's safety .
published by “Royal Journal for Medicine” in which is explained that medical evolution is not attributable to animal testing.
published by “Royal Journal for Medicine” in which it is explained that medical evolution is not attributable to animal testing.
In the professor’s opinion is hardly to believe
In the professor’s opinion it is hardly to believe
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 12
No. of Words: 311 250
No. of Characters: 1497 1200
No. of Different Words: 149 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.199 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.814 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.528 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 44 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.214 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.143 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4