Is an article published in the BMJ journal authored by Pound et al. In general, this article sides with the idea that animal research benefits humans and research in general and states the different ways in which animals are used and their advantages to humans. The authors of this article are all professors at universities whom all have extensive knowledge in the scientific and medical industry. As scholars, their immediate purpose throughout this article was to educate their target through their trustworthiness and credibility as professionals. The audiences for this article are extremely diverse as it can be for the general public who are looking to improve on their knowledge on animal research in general or researchers who are interested in grasping a deeper understanding on how animal testing in science is beneficial. This article gains its credibility by providing references to support their views and findings showing that the authors have thoroughly researched this topic and ensured that all arguments are …show more content…
This article talks about the pros and cons of using animals in experimentation, giving views on both sides of this argument using the theory of evolution. As a Professor of Bioethics at the Linkoping University, Nordgren primarily focus on the ethics of animal experimentation (Christiansen, 2013) and has dedicated his professional career on this issue making him a credible source in regards to this topic. Again, the audience for this article are somewhat similar to the audience targeted in article one ‘Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?’ where they are not only focusing on reaching a specific group of people, but aim it towards multiple target audiences who are interested in expanding their knowledge on this issue. Nordgren gains the attention of his readers as talks about feelings and intuition in order to emotionally appeal to his audience. The author’s main goal was to inform the audience on the issue of animal experimentation and explain what exactly goes on before going into depth about the argument where he then compared other researchers’ work to support his own. In contrast, these two articles have many similarities, in terms of the setting, purpose and audience targeted regardless of the fact they are supporting different