A Comparison of Two Media Texts Essay

Animals very rarely serve as models for the human body. Many people are brought up with the idea that animal experimentation is necessary to insure the safety of humans, but in reality, these experiments are creating only harm to animals. Animals have done nothing to deserve this backlash, and by educating the public on the true unsuccessfulness of animal testing, the ethical side is forced out in the open. The argument ‘Animal Testing is Bad Science’ by the People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), argues that ethics dictate the value of each life, and that no life is overthrown by another. This well formulated argument effectively integrates ethos, logos, powerful structure, and robust premises to persuade the audience.

A Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles In this essay I will be comparing two articles taken from local

(Allusion) These animals are forced to live in their own personal hell (Metaphor) where they are used in different experiments and are often subject to forced feeding and inhalation in addition to being deprived of water and food for prolonged periods of time. They are restrained and burned so that scientists can study the healing process of wounds, while the pain they feel is to study the effects of remedies. Would you want to be restrained while scientists inject you with strange substances, or pour liquids in your eyes and spread creams on you? (Rhetorical Q) According to PETA (Allusion), more than 100 million animals are used every year in unnecessary, cruel and unreliable experiments (Repetition of key point) such as drug, food, chemical and cosmetic tests but exact numbers can not be provided because 95% of all the animals used are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. This act minimally protects live or dead cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys or hamsters but does not protect birds, mice, rats and farm animals used for food and other purposes. The act regulates transportation and housing of the animals but it does not regulate the actual experiments, which allows the scientists to do unnecessary tests on the animals without getting in any

The reader is presented with the stories of different adults who grew up as orphans and were able to create a better life for themselves with the help of this nonprofit organization. The article does an excellent job in describing the feelings these adults felt as they grew up; it explains the hidden aspects of the lives of these orphans that we fail to acknowledge. The content provided in this article was useful, because it sets an example of all the things a nonprofit organization can do. It also explains how the beneficiaries feel before and after they are helped. This is a different kind of information, however it is an example of what I could try to imitate. The article is a news article, I consider it reliable. I also consider the article to have been biased towards their Vocational training program. The article fits my research by providing me with an example of what I should try to imitate. It was helpful because it showed me the various ways orphans beneficiate from nonprofit organizations around the world; and to think some kids could benefit from something I start is an amazing inspiration. The article definitely shaped my argument because it is proof that what my senior project looks to accomplish, is something that will be

How can Dogs Make You Happier, or is it healthier? That is the first difference between a media article and the scientific article. While the media article created from the scientific report, small differences are put into place that infers different conclusions. In reading the scientific article, the reader is always aware of strong correlation but is also cognizant that proof of dogs improving human health is not available. In reading the media article it is inferred that the theory has been proved. Seeing the difference between the two pieces has given me a heightened sense of awareness and skepticism in what media articles are delivering as truth.

In this compare and contrast essay I will be comparing and contrasting human testing vs. Animal testing I understand the need for animals to be tested on some science projects putting a mouse in a trap to see if he'll find the cheese but testing vaccines on them but if you tested vaccines on humans I don't think you're going to be proud of you know every single day with 15 different needles to see if you get sick or what kind of allergic reaction you would have. Say that animals are people too you know animals are your best friends I know my animals are my best friends I don't think you really want to think of your best friends mom or dad getting probe you with a needle to see if so let's see what allergic reaction they have animals sadly do

The debate on whether animal testing should continue revolves around the morality of testing animals. It is understood that “[m]ost people agree that animals have at least some moral status – that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals”(Liou 2010). What debaters argue about is whether animals have a moral status that is paramount to that of humans; such as the capacity to suffer and to enjoy life. This is a topic discussed in “Consider the Lobster,” in which the author discusses whether or not the lobsters feel pain when being cooked (Wallace 60). It was found that “[s]upporters of this type of argument [, those who think that the two moral statuses are paramount,] frequently claim that granting animals less moral

Those for animal testing feel that it is not cruel and inhumane and it has successfully contributed to life-saving cures and treatments. They feel as if they have been given restrictions on how they treat the animals as they treat the animals as they should be. To even receive any money towards institutions and testing, they must go by the policies placed on behalf of the humane care and use of laboratory animals set by PHS-Public Health Service. As they see it, they already have to abide by certain strict policies which are placed to protect the animals from being abused in anyway, and as long as they continue to do so they are allowed to conduct researches and studies. They understand that many are concerned for the animal’s safety, but having the scientists to test possible cures that could possibly be a cure for disease that has already taken too many lives from parents, children, and siblings.

Many people have animals around the world, whether it be dogs, cats, reptiles, birds, even horses and llamas, and they all love them very much. A lot of people will do anything to ensure the comfort and safety of their companion and friend. Many people may be shocked and horrified to find that over 100 Million animals die each year due to animal testing. This essay will go into more detail about some reasons why people might find animal testing wrong, and some reasons why a lot of people see it as a good thing. While most believe that animal testing is important for medical research, some people think it is wrong because it’s been shown that less than 8% of all animal test results actually contain profitable data and that over 100 million

“Scientists told to stop wasting animal lives,” this is an article from The Guardian, written by Robin McKie. It addresses the issues about using animals to test products for us to use such as, medicines to try help treat serious illnesses and also for veterinary purposes. Animal testing is carried out by scientists to also test items we use daily such as makeup but this article is not talking about those particular issues. This article is discussing about undergoing new guidelines for those that are carrying out research using animals. The Research Council UK say they are now making scientists show their work will not only produce physiological understanding but will also generate statistically sturdy data. If not they will end up losing their funding.

The first article is a new article written by BBC. The article they wrote is not rhetorically effective because of all the missing components. The BBC article is written in the organizational method of narration. The method of organization is extremely obvious since the author is not making any connection with the audience just stating facts. BBC states in their article, "Diana, Princess of Wales, has died after a car crash in Paris" (BBC np). The author is too formal and does not give any emotion throughout the paper. Since the connection with the audience is lacking, part of the rhetorical triangle is missing making the article ineffective. The audience part of the triangle relates to pathos, and since the thought of audience is missing from the article pathos is not present. Despite the fact many things are missing in the article, logos and ethos are present. BBC establishes ethos because they are a new station, and people trust the news and what they say. Logos is established through the article because the wording is very straightforward in delivering facts about the

The newspaper article “Damning report finds many NHS staff lack the ability and compassion to do their job” (Daily Mail, 10th January, 2012) was published by Leon Watson. According to News Trust (2014) the Daily Mail newspaper is the oldest tabloid and also a British paper which was first published in 1896. News Trust, (2014) also explains that the Daily Mail is Britain 's second wealthiest newspaper soon after The Sun. Since this newspaper was published 3 years ago, it carries some form of currency as it is quite recent and according to News Trust, (2014) it is a reliable source with relevant up to date information. However, Bidgood, Lunt & Joliffe (2013) explains that it can be very hard for a student to critique a newspaper article because they normally provide minimal information about the study and therefore this becomes hypothetical instead of being based on the actual facts.

Animal Research has become a heated debate over the past few decades, reaching a high point around the end of the twentieth century yet it still continues through today. There are two main ways to look at this topic: the logos pro side and the pathos anti side. Those who are for animal testing realize the amazing benefits that can come out of such research while those against animal testing stand up for animals’ rights and try to find ways to better such research without killing so many innocent, defenseless animals. While both sides seem to carry their argument well, those against animal testing ruin their ethos by making their argument an emotional one while those who are for animal testing build

‘To them, we are royalty, to us they are peasants.’ An animal’s love for their owner can be the strongest bond between two living beings. But the same thing cannot be said for a humans bond to an animal. We humans, as the highest in the food chain, treat animals as lower than us as if they are under our control. Organisations like animals testing facilities, use animals because they don’t have a voice to speak up. My acts as a voice for all those animals that are trapped in a cage of silence. Another quote on my poster reads, ‘Animals have feelings too’. All organisations that are guilty of cruelty towards animals do not believe that an animal can experience a range of emotions and pain. That rabbit does feel that needle in his stomach, that lobster experiences every nerve being burnt in that boiling pot of water. By using these two quotes, we can educate people who clearly do not have the mental capacity to understand that animals hurt just like we do and that we need to treat them with the same

Text A, a transcript from a British radio station, is discussing how people should be more cautious about hurting endangered species especially dolphins appealing to environmentalist and listeners of the radio station. Meanwhile Text B, an entry from Encyclopedia Britannica, is informing Environmentalist and humans in general about the destruction of the environments and animals caused by humans. Both authors use the overall purpose to attract the same audience is similar in both articles, but the articles differ in overall diction, syntax, tone, and several other textual features.