Crystal Diaz - NAU-dana



Analysis of The Argument Against Animal Experimentation

The debate over the use of animals for medical research is causing a growing number of scientists to reconsider this practice. Patricia Curtis’ “The Argument Against Animal Experimentation”, which was printed in the New York Times originally, invites controversy by discussing both opposing view points, and the ideas of those in support of animal testing. In her essay, Curtis states her thesis that “animals have the right to exist without suffering needlessly” through experiments. She successfully backs up her thesis by presenting her position in a well-reasoned logical manner, as well as maintaining credibility and integrity, all while she appeals to the readers emotion.

The author of this essay holds a passionate interest in the treatment of animals, and particularly the rights of all animals, big and small. Her background is made evident through the collection of published works listed in the preface of the essay. Writing an argumentative essay calls for careful analyzing of the audience and purpose, which will in turn decide the approach that the author will take. Curtis understood that her audience would be older students and regular newspaper readers that either had yet to take a side on the subject, or would be skeptical and reluctant to agree. It is suggested that perhaps the readers do not have much knowledge on which they can base their own true opinion, therefore, the purpose of the paper is to inform. The type of essay also confirms that another purpose is to persuade the audience to agree with her and possibly even take action.

Patricia Curtis is able to persuade the audience to an effective degree by her choices of rhetorical appeals. Curtis claims that there are many reasons why some

Crystal Pg 2

experiments are not useful or dependable and could be replaced by adequate alternatives. Her main concern is with the logos, or supporting examples and authoritive statements, because her waving and especially adverse audience responds more to this type of appeal. One example of this is when she mentions that a test devised by Dr. Hans Stich using human cells took about one week and cost only $260, whereas the original rats and mice approach took three years and $150,000 dollars.

Along with writing her essay with an abundance of logic and reason, Curtis must make sure to maintain her integrity and make the essay credible. She does this by convincing the wavering reader that she has every bit of knowledge necessary to make such a reliable claim and by acknowledging opposing arguments and refuting them with good will. An example of the use of ethos is near the beginning when she writes, “There is no question the many important medical discoveries, …, have indeed been made through the use of animals. Thus universities, medical and scientific institutions …. have always taken for granted their right to use animals in almost any way they see fit.”

While ethos and logos play a strong role in “The Argument Against Animal Experimentation”, Patricia Curtis also spruces up her essay with some emotional appeal, also called pathos. She starts out her essay with a story to draw the reader in about a doctor who must remove the vocal cords of a dog that looks just like his own pet to ready her for experimental surgery. She does not hesitate to leave out information that makes one cringe at the thought of such atrocities. Curtis applies connotative language in her essay to spur the readers’ views. She influences the ready by choosing words and phrases like, “It’s hard not to feel squeamish about subjecting animals to inhumane experiments

Crystal Pg 3

when they possess almost-human intelligence,” and, “[the pigs’] are exposed to a substance until inflammation, ulceration, or gross damage occurs.

Given the moral and ethical dilemma of the topic, it was, at first, hard to choose a side on the debate over animal testing. Like most students my age, I considered myself as part of the wavering audience. The writer’s intentions were to inform and persuade this type of audience, and after reading the text, I feel she did a great job, which may affect the way I see the essay as a whole. Because the essay was published in 1978, my own analysis was affected due to the 27 year difference during which many of the experimental processes and animals chosen have changed for the better.

It is very possible that this piece could fool people by leaving out all the scientific advances that past tests on animals have allowed. Without medical research some drug development, surgical techniques, and understanding of biological processes may not be around to save human lives. Patricia Curtis does a good job at making readers aware of movements and progress towards stopping needless cruel treatment of animals in experimental procedures. Overall I’d have to say that if James Higuera were to grade Patricia’s argument persuasive paper entitled “The Argument Against Animal Experimentation” he’d give her an A++++ for being so successful at supporting her claim.

Essay #2: Rhetorical Analysis

Analysis of The Argument Against Animal Experimentation

By Crystal Diaz

ENG 105 M-TH 6:50-7:40pm

James Higuera

The strengths of my paper is its clear organization set by the assignment sheet. I tried to follow the assignment sheet to the best of my ability, but some of it was confusing. I chose a very long essay, which took a lot more time to analyze. I feel that since the piece was so nicely written, I was able to pull out good evidence of support of its thesis. Much of the conclusion was confusing to me about how to do it correctly. I’m not sure what it meant by “implications” and what they suggest. The peer review turned out to be very helpful. I was given great advice on sentence structure. I know I could work on some sentence flow and developing stronger ideas.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download