The Americans for Medical Progress Essay Example

a pig's heart, and who expressed gratitude to the animals for helping extend her life.

It's difficult to comprehend how someone thanked a deceased animal. The pig didn't intentionally give its heart valve to the woman, nor did it communicate any desires. The act was carried out without giving the pig any say in the matter.

The difference between the pig used for animal testing and pets treated as family members is vast. The lack of a name for the pig raises the question of why it is not treated with the same love as animals like Duke or Sabrina. Despite arguing for animal testing, the webpage fails to treat the pig as anything more than a heart valve. In contrast, the Animal Aid leaflet takes a different approach and emphasizes the negative aspects of animal testing. With strong persuasive language, the text shocks the reader by describing inhumane treatment of animals in the name of research.

The image on the first side features a wolf's eyes as the main focus with the words "It's a crying shame." displayed. The lower part of the image reveals that animals undergo vision experiments wherein their eyes are surgically removed.

Although the image and text produce a sensation of shock and indignation, the assertion made by the leaflet lacks supporting proof. This situation occurs frequently throughout the information presented in the text, which states, "In reality, research indicates that animal testing accurately predicts the adverse effects of medications in just 5-25% of cases."

There's insufficient evidence to support this claim, and the range of 5-25% is quite broad. On the second side's final section, alternative methods of finding cures without using

animals are discussed, such as closely monitoring patients. However, this implies that untested drugs will be administered to humans and is essentially a form of human testing, contradicting the earlier assertion that all animals (including humans) should be treated equally.

"Why test on humans?" This is the question posed in the leaflet opposing animal testing. It highlights that humans are animals and thus, should not be subjected to such tests. The inset in the leaflet features two pictures, both of which are heartbreaking. The one with the monkey depicts it in a state of anguish and distress.

The fact that it appears young causes people to feel guilty. The final paragraph in the inset is poignant and encourages readers to consider the plight of animals undergoing vivisection instead of their own pets.

When considering giving up their pet, the majority of individuals experience feelings of guilt, sorrow, and distress. The phrasing used to suggest relinquishing a pet can be forceful and leave the reader feeling obligated to take action. To mitigate these negative emotions, the leaflet provides suggestions for alternative actions at the bottom, potentially utilizing marketing strategies.

The group added the text to gain support and continue their fight for what they believe in. The two writings share certain similarities but are also vastly different. They both employ persuasive writing and evoke emotions. Scientific terms are used in both texts, but the leaflet uses them out of context and doesn't give further details on their usage, making the reader think there's no purpose behind the experiments. On the other hand, the webpage clarifies the reasons for conducting the experiments and persuades readers that they serve good

purposes rather than inflicting pointless suffering on animals. The use of scientific terminology on the webpage subtly emphasizes this point, which is not as pronounced in the leaflet.

The use of scientific terminology lends credibility to the webpage and increases the likelihood of the reader accepting the information. Both the webpage and leaflet incorporate visuals to evoke emotional responses from the audience. However, while the webpage displays a positive and cheerful image, the leaflet uses unsettling imagery to startle and shock readers. Ultimately, both sources aim to sway the reader's perspective to align with their own agenda.

Both sides are attempting to convince the reader to adopt their perspective, seeking support and averting disagreement. Presumably, this motivation stems from a desire to avoid opposition and challenge to their beliefs.