IELTS Animal Testing Essay - Model Answer
In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments for and against animal testing, and then give your own conclusions on the issue.
This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.
The essay is similar to an essay that says "Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion" but it is worded differently.
Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.
Animal Testing Essay
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.
Write at least 250 words.
Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer
Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary.
In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals' rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of testing product toxicity are available. Humans cannot justify making life better for themselves
by randomly torturing and executing thousands of animals per year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products. Animals should be treated with respect and dignity, and this right to decent treatment is not upheld when animals are exploited for selfish human gain. After all, humans are animals too.
This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing.
On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.
Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet.
Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and
product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for
animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities
and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in
research or to test the safety of products.
On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead.
However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with this
reasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a consideration. Experimental animals are virtually tortured to death, and all of these tests are done in the interest of human welfare, without any thought to how the animals are treated. Others respond that animals themselves benefit from animal research
. Yet in an article entitled "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" Sheila Silcock, a research consultant for the RSPCA, states: "Animals may themselves be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. But the value we place on the quality of their lives is determined by their perceived value to humans" (34). Making human's lives better should not be
justification for torturing and exploiting animals. The value that humans place on their own lives should be extended to the lives of animals as well.
Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.
Silcock, Sheila. "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" New Scientist 134 (1992): 32-34.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.
This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.
It fully answers all parts of the task- explaining the arguments 'for' in the first paragraph and the arguments 'against' in the next.
Research, Vioxx Tragedy Spotlights Failure of Animal. Dü. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. tarih yok.
Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.
It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea.
Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.
There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs' and 'bred' and a mix of complex sentences, such as adverbial clauses:
'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.