Analyzing A Short Paper

In my paper by Lone Star College on Animal Testing, even in their title their purpose for the paper and position is clear. They want animal testing to stop. From the very beginning of their paper, the author Heather Dunnuck clearly states people feel differently about animals, and some of them agree with the topic even though she disagrees. It is obvious why the topic matters, should lives of animals be used to further progress for humans, or should their lives be spared and treated with respect. This hits the hearts of every pet owner and more. It effects everyone whether or not animals are used, since not using them could slow science. She continually mentions this point, and continually shoots it down by appealing to ethos and pathos, since it is an emotional topic. One of the sources cited said "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" (qtd. in Orlans 26.) The idea that the logical choice is to experiment on animals doesn't make it right, but it makes it harder to argue against. Her arguments are reduced to illogical appeals  which do however appeal to the reader. Animal testing has been a heated topic since it first started, and she responds as well as she can to the claims by doing her research and giving background information when it is needed.