Rhetorical Analysis Essay

“Should Animals Continue to Be Used in Research Experiments?” an article by Cynthia Barnett. It seems logical that animals would be used for testing rather than humans. The question is, why? Is it really necessary for animal’s to be used as “guinea pigs?” Burnett provides evidence of how far back in time experimental research has been tested on animals. She argues that the useful information obtained from these test could have been found through alternative testing. In the article she notes strong arguments made against animal experimentation. One being how both species human and non-human are different. Experiments to benefit human kind are being tested on a species that is biologically different. Thus bringing her to ask the very question she titled her article.
Barnett wants her readers to ask themselves if it is worth it, are the benefits higher than the risk or sacrifice? Burnett uses evidence that proves her belief of using animals for experimentation as unnecessary to persuade the audience. She appeals to logos by providing the information that animals are not of the same species as humans. Persuading her readers to believe it doesn’t make sense to test a drug on an animal that is not biologically the same as a human. Even so Burnett’s article lacked evidence that could appeal to the readers emotional side. Had Burnett’s article provided evidence that animals could feel and/or hurt this could cause her readers to feel compassion, sorry, regret, and/or anger. This sort of evidence cold raise a number of questions such as; Is it necessary, if testing must be done on a living species why on helpless animals? Animals cannot speak or communicate with humans as well as humans can communicate amongst themselves. Is the use of animals for experimental research ethical? Because there are alternative ways to hold some of these experiments that does not require the usage of animals, is the human species inhumane?
Burnett’s argument provides her readers with the knowledge that alternative solution to experimentation that does not involve the use of animals does exist. Burnett gives a few strong examples against animal experimentation. The use of animals in research is to find answers and evidence that the medication or cosmetic product can be used successfully on humans. Animals are unlike humans in many ways. The two are of a completely different species built with different organic systems. “Two grams of scopolamine kill a human being, but dogs and cats can stand hundred times higher dosages” (Burnett). If this is so how can researchers be certain that what proved as a successful experiment on an animal but just as successful on a human? I do not believe they can be so certain. With the differences in our species there is no reason to test on a species that does not posses the same chemical or biological properties as the species the drug or product is originally

Show More