Ethical and Critical Thinking Paper
Lorena Soto
Mark Gayden
HUMN180
30 April, 2013
Animal Testing – Critical Thinking Paper When it comes to reading articles on controversial topics such as animal testing, it is easy to get lost in vague or coercive language, propaganda, and fallacies. The writer often feels strongly about the topic and wants the reader to agree with his or her viewpoint, so they will use certain reasoning techniques to make someone take their side. I found two articles with opposing viewpoints on whether or not animal testing should be used for medical research, and did my best to analyze how each of the authors presented their information. Let’s take a closer look at these two articles. The first article I read was written by a woman who is against animal testing for medical research. She believes that since animals cannot consent to the testing they are being used for, it is unethical; as stated in her article, “Just as we do not experiment on humans who are incapable of consenting to experimentation, we should not experiment on non-human animals.” (about) For the most part, the language that is used throughout the article can be understood by someone who is not part of the medical community but it does include some medical jargon such as vivisection, epidemiological, and vaccine. The way the author structured her article was by asking a question then writing a one to two paragraph response to that one question. After I read through the article a few times, I noticed that there was a lot of slanted negative language and loaded expressions that make the reader feel bad for the animals, and to excite the readers emotions. For example, “… vivisection is antithetical to animal rights because animals have a right to be free from experimentation, imprisonment, and killing.” (about) I also noticed the use of the straw man fallacy where the author claims that because it is unethical to experiment on humans, it’s unethical for animals as well. “Just as unethical experimentation
Mark Gayden
HUMN180
30 April, 2013
Animal Testing – Critical Thinking Paper When it comes to reading articles on controversial topics such as animal testing, it is easy to get lost in vague or coercive language, propaganda, and fallacies. The writer often feels strongly about the topic and wants the reader to agree with his or her viewpoint, so they will use certain reasoning techniques to make someone take their side. I found two articles with opposing viewpoints on whether or not animal testing should be used for medical research, and did my best to analyze how each of the authors presented their information. Let’s take a closer look at these two articles. The first article I read was written by a woman who is against animal testing for medical research. She believes that since animals cannot consent to the testing they are being used for, it is unethical; as stated in her article, “Just as we do not experiment on humans who are incapable of consenting to experimentation, we should not experiment on non-human animals.” (about) For the most part, the language that is used throughout the article can be understood by someone who is not part of the medical community but it does include some medical jargon such as vivisection, epidemiological, and vaccine. The way the author structured her article was by asking a question then writing a one to two paragraph response to that one question. After I read through the article a few times, I noticed that there was a lot of slanted negative language and loaded expressions that make the reader feel bad for the animals, and to excite the readers emotions. For example, “… vivisection is antithetical to animal rights because animals have a right to be free from experimentation, imprisonment, and killing.” (about) I also noticed the use of the straw man fallacy where the author claims that because it is unethical to experiment on humans, it’s unethical for animals as well. “Just as unethical experimentation