EF_Sean
Mar 12, 2009
Writing Feedback / "Animals should have rights too" - Argumentative Essay (Rogerian Style) [3]
You need to expand on your premises and tighten up the logic of your essay. For instance:
"Animals are just like humans experiencing the same pain and emotions." First of all, it is not clear that this is true of all animals. Lobsters, for instance, like most crustaceans, and, for that matter, many insects, lack the sort of nervous system that we have. Some scientists believe that this makes them incapable of feeling pain. Even those that think that they do feel pain believe that their "pain" is very different from our own, because it is physically impossible for them to feel any of the emotions that we do when we suffer. Second, even for those animals that do feel pain, so what? Why should their ability to feel pain matter to us? This question is not rhetorical -- there are ways you can answer it that would support your point of view, but you don't give any of those answers in your essay at the moment.
Most of the rest of your essay is like this, btw. It consists mainly of assertions that won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them. So:
"However, humans are just another species of animals and should share the right of freedom." No, we're not. If we were, we wouldn't worry about killing animals, any more than a bear or a wolf does. For that matter, we might practice infanticide regularly, as lions do, or cannibalism, as spiders do.
"Using an alternative method will also speed up the process, allowing drugs to be approved faster, as well as using fewer animals." This is an argument against animal testing on pragmatic grounds. It implies that, if animal testing would be faster and more effective in determining the safety of drugs than any other alternative, it would be all right. But you want, presumably, to make a moral argument.
"When hunters frighten a deer, it causes them to run out of the woods and onto roads, causing an increased number of collisions during hunting season. People even hunt in neighborhoods, which can be very dangerous, and cause injuries to people in the area." This would be more convincing if you provided statistics and citations to back up your claims, which currently sound made up.
"Before an animal is used for food, they should be able to live in their natural environment, not a cage so small they cannot turn around in for their entire life. They should not be forced fed, mistreated, or tortured before they are used for food." Another unfounded assertion.
So, more logic, more explanation of why we shouldn't do the things you say we shouldn't do, would greatly improve this essay.
You need to expand on your premises and tighten up the logic of your essay. For instance:
"Animals are just like humans experiencing the same pain and emotions." First of all, it is not clear that this is true of all animals. Lobsters, for instance, like most crustaceans, and, for that matter, many insects, lack the sort of nervous system that we have. Some scientists believe that this makes them incapable of feeling pain. Even those that think that they do feel pain believe that their "pain" is very different from our own, because it is physically impossible for them to feel any of the emotions that we do when we suffer. Second, even for those animals that do feel pain, so what? Why should their ability to feel pain matter to us? This question is not rhetorical -- there are ways you can answer it that would support your point of view, but you don't give any of those answers in your essay at the moment.
Most of the rest of your essay is like this, btw. It consists mainly of assertions that won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them. So:
"However, humans are just another species of animals and should share the right of freedom." No, we're not. If we were, we wouldn't worry about killing animals, any more than a bear or a wolf does. For that matter, we might practice infanticide regularly, as lions do, or cannibalism, as spiders do.
"Using an alternative method will also speed up the process, allowing drugs to be approved faster, as well as using fewer animals." This is an argument against animal testing on pragmatic grounds. It implies that, if animal testing would be faster and more effective in determining the safety of drugs than any other alternative, it would be all right. But you want, presumably, to make a moral argument.
"When hunters frighten a deer, it causes them to run out of the woods and onto roads, causing an increased number of collisions during hunting season. People even hunt in neighborhoods, which can be very dangerous, and cause injuries to people in the area." This would be more convincing if you provided statistics and citations to back up your claims, which currently sound made up.
"Before an animal is used for food, they should be able to live in their natural environment, not a cage so small they cannot turn around in for their entire life. They should not be forced fed, mistreated, or tortured before they are used for food." Another unfounded assertion.
So, more logic, more explanation of why we shouldn't do the things you say we shouldn't do, would greatly improve this essay.