Writing Feedback / IELTS: Should we experiment on animals? [2]

Topic: Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develope new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Answer: People have different views about we should continue to use animals for scientific research or we should ban these experiments.
Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is normally wrong to cause animals to suffer. Animals are living, sentient beings, so we feel pain and so have they. The only difference is we can show our pain, but they can't. They also have own lives in nature environment. Furthermore, we always claim that every creature is bare equal. Animals have rights to survive.

So the question for us is "what should we do to protect them?". According to AAVS (American anti-vivisection society), animals studies do not reliable predict human outcomes. For example, penicilin is toxic in guinea pigs but has been invaluable tools in human medicines... and some people think that using animal experiments is cruel selfish activities.

Although there are good arguments in favour of banning these experiments, until now, we can not reject them. We also can't deny the benefits of animals testing to humanity. Firstly, testing products on animals often saves human life. Most drugs must be tested by animals before approval by government. Without animals testing, scientists would estimate the effects directly on human. In most case, reseachers attempt to minimize the pain or distress experienced by animals in laboratories. That's all the scientists can do.

In conclusion, I personally believe that we still have to use animals to test new products like drugs... in order to ensure the life of human.

Writing Feedback / St Augustine was the first individual who read silentlz; A silent force [4]

Hope to recieve commends from you.
There was a legend that St Augustine was the first individual who read silently rather than aloud, semi-aloud. Reading as it was in St Augustine's day. There was a time when reading is a menial job of scribes and priests, not mark of civilization it became in Europe during the Renassance when it was seen as one of the civilized individual.

Literacy influences the economic of countries today. While the Western countries have been seen decline of this area, other less developed countries have advanced, in some case, overtaken the western countries. European countries have satisfied with their laurels in the past for too long, so they need to look for the suitable solutions.

Reading is an economic force. It is the bedrock of economic advancement, particularly in the present technological age. Studies have illustrates that the benifit to the economic by increasing the literacy and numeracy skills of primary school children generally is in billions of pounds in UK.

Part of the problem with reading is that it is not appreciated in most developed societies. This attitude is that has condemned large of population in Western countries to illiteracy. The attitude to reading amongst young also have a big influence. Students at school, college usually give a name for students who read many books called bookworms. The solitude of reading seems not appealing as sitting in front of computer screens or a Walkman. Peer pressure among young people is so powerful. It can kill any attempts to change attitudes to habits like reading.

In conclusion, I think if all of us are become bookworms, why not?