A Rhetorical Analysis Of David Masci's Article On Animal Rights

In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan

Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals is a book about persuasion. Foer seeks to convince his readers to take any step in reducing what he believes is the injustice of harming animals. To achieve this, Foer employs many persuasion techniques and often changes his approach when he targets specific groups. His strategies include establishing himself as an ethical authority and appealing to his readers’ emotions, morals, and reason.

In her work “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights,” Vicki Hearne challenges common beliefs of animal rights, arguing that animal rights groups do very little to actually benefit animals. She argues that natural selection should be allowed to take place for wild animals, and animals such as cats and dogs should not be seen as property. To persuade the audience to support her position, she uses ethos, pathos, and logos. Her credibility as a trainer makes the logic behind her views reliable, her logic reinforces the examples she uses, and she appeals to emotion using her relationship with her Airedale, Drummer, to support everything her argument is saying. Through these strategies, Vicki Hearne effectively counters the current, popular views of the

Discursive Essay (1st Draft) – Kevin Cho I have detested animal testing ever since I watched a document showing orangutan tortured to death during the animal testing. I was physically and mentally sick when I looked into its eyes. Now, while you are reading this essay, perhaps holding a scrumptious apple pie in your hand, hundreds of, thousands of feeble animals are dying by inhumane animal tests.

There was strong evidence and logical reasoning when discussing the benefits of animal testing. However, there is room for improvement. The logos within the speech was great, but there could be more pathos. Discussing the people that animal testing provided cures for in more detail would help the audience grasp a more emotional benefit of animal testing. Secondly, Holder could improve his argument with less hasty generalizations.

Machan believes he has the best theory explaining why animals do not have rights. He makes this claim by first acknowledging how

Thus proving, how this could, and should, have been avoided all along; justifying how Robinson's video of animal cruelty should be a

Rhetorical Analysis “Down on the factory farm” The last thing that comes to our mind when we order a piece of steak at a restaurant is how that animal we are about to eat was being treated while they were alive. According to author Peter Singer’s article "Down on the factory farm” he questions what happened to your dinner when it was still an animal? He argues about the use and abuse of animals raised for our consumption. In Singer’s article he states personal facts and convincing statistics to raise a legitimate argument.

This illustrates how the author uses simple appeals to convey ethos and provided facts and statistics, as well as emotional appeals to support his claim. He tried to use personal examples, but referred to in the beginning of his article, “As a non-hunter, I cannot say anything about what it feels like to shoot or trap an animal” (Is Hunting Moral?). This shows that he has not had a first-hand experiment with the issue and makes the reader believe that this is misrepresentation of his

I’m here today to talk about a controversial issue that has been around for a period of time, animal testing. Animal testing using animals in experiments with different chemical substances in everything from medical to cosmetic to determine their safety as well as effectiveness . It’s a problem that has existed since the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE with its merciless methods and painful ways of abusing animals for human demands, but now it’s time for it to stop. Our technology has developed significantly since; therefore, such medieval methods of torturing animals are no longer necessary. Researches have shown that each year, over 100 million animals are tortured and killed in American laboratories alone, including dogs, cats and more; this shows how far out of hand animal testing have gotten.

Many argue that animal testing is inhumane, and that animals should no longer be used for the benefit of mankind. However, I can confidently argue that animal testing is, in fact, the best way to prove a product to be safe. In a survey done in the US, 99% of the active physicians thought that animal testing should be continued - for the present, it is clear that no alternative to animal testing is accurate enough to replace it. Without animal testing, we will become the subject of experiments. People should be aware that without any alternative in place, it would be the same as saying that human rights are less important than animal rights.

About 54% of the people oppose to animal testing amongst young adults aged 18 to 29 as on 2012, according to Zeltner, B. As per Justin Goodman, director of PETA and an adjunct instructor of sociology at Marymount University in Arlington, Va., that no matter what the gender is, political connections or even age groups, the negativism towards animal testing has been dramatically increasing. That comes as a result for the laws, policies as well as the research funding systems have changed to meet the people’s

Animal testing simply means the use of non-human animals in experiments, which indeed arouse great controversy in recent years. More and more people think that human being’s benefits can’t outweigh animals’

Actually all testing and research done on animals should be under the control of government. The last and the most things is that it’s our responsibilities to take care of all the animals, even though they are just using for

Animal testing can be traced back to the 17th century with Harvey’s experiments on numerous animal species aiming to demonstrate blood circulation. Protest and controversy against animal testing emerged during the twentieth century with a strong focus against cosmetic testing. Protesters argue that an animal should have the same right as a human and it is wrong because the inability of animals to consent to the tests. Animal testing should be illegal because: regardless of government regulation animals are still mistreated and there are now alternative ways which can eliminate most of animal testing and produce more reliable results. Despite government regulations, animals are mistreated.