
I am interested in this topic of animal testing for the purpose of finding a way to satisfy both sides of the argument, where we are no longer experimenting on animals with results of harm yet we are not limiting ourselves from discoveries and advances in research.  I am indifferent about the current testing done on animals, and to the most part would encourage it if there was no found replacement of animals for research.  The research done thus far has not changed my values in any sense, but it has changed my interests on scientific advancements.  I am qualified to write about this issue because I am not strongly influenced by one side of the argument, where I am an animal lover and use only "non-animal tested" products nor am I seeking to spend my future as a researcher in labs making revolutionary discoveries. 


1. The article claims that animal testing for food, drug and cosmetic experiments is crucial to the development of essential treatments or discoveries. There were two given examples of incidents when products were open to the public without prior animal testing causing death to hundreds or malformations of newborns.  

2. In the article there are references to philosophers and scientists, who have studied on animals in the past, and lead to breakthroughs in science.  But without the opportunities to test on animals before used on humans our ability to make innovations will become limited and may never progress.

3. The informative genre convinces the reader with proof that what she is arguing is backed up with proof and historical evidence.  This appeals to logos, and causes the reader to believe in the author due to their historical events and known scientists as evidence.


1.The article explains that animal testing for cosmetic experiments is not required and provides proof with an example of the company LUSH.  The author mentions a letter written to the government of Australia to urge them in implementing a ban of tests and sales of products related to animal testing.  

2. The author seems very passionate about the issue and how animal testing is unethical and unnecessary especially when millions are killed each year for tests, biology lessons, medical training or curiosity driven experiments. 

3.The argumentative genre persuades the reader to agree with the claim of banning animal testing, with the use of pathos to connect to readers in an emotional sense by explaining the harm and even death of animals that is caused by the experiments.


1.The article is about three modern methods that are used instead for testing in replacement of animals, which actually have saved time and money in addition to being more applicable to humans.  These tests are tests using human cells and tissues, advanced computer models and human volunteers. 

2. Due to the criticism of animal testing which are expensive, harsh, and irrelevant to humans in some cases.  Due to the differences in animal species it becomes hard and even impossible to apply the results to humans, the newer methods are being promoted for their benefits. 

3. The article provided video examples of each of the new non-animal research methods, in addition to descriptions of how the techniques are beneficial and even better than animal subjects.  The article came from the PETA website which is an organization that funds the new methods while promoting ethical treatment of animals.

The research question is arguable because each side can poke holes in the opposing sides case, whether it's how most animal testing results are inapplicable to humans or that the scientific progress is interrupted if animals are the subjects of experiments.  Between the two I am at a crossroads the more I research the topic, but if there is no possible method found that can satisfy either side I would support the continuous testing on animals for the benefit of improvements in research.  If I were to revise my research it would be to strength the support of new methods of experiments. 
