essay task one

The text supports the idea of using animals for medical experiments. That is, it points out that new medicals should be tested on animals and be justified before using them to human. On the other hand, the biology professor expresses her disagreement to such behavior against animals and wants animals to be supported from this kind of danger. So, the professor casts doubt on the text by giving some reasons and examples.

For the first reason, based on the text materials, it is possible to use anesthesia for medical experiments on animals ad so make them suffer lower. However, the professor states that "do not believe that" and she explains that human never do that a she has been in a medical experiment institute for a while and she know that they do not apply that assertive in real world.

For the next reason, the text points out that there is no good substitute for the animals to see the result of a new medicine and consequently they are obliged to use them for such purposes. In contrast, the professor believes that there are lots of substitutes for animals. She gives some examples like computer simulations and planted tissues which may be exploited instead of animals.

Finally, as expressed in text, many useful medicines have been discovered as a result of experiments on animals; so, these experiments should be continued. To criticize this general statement, the professor gives some examples which do not follow the asserted opinion. As some cases in point, she names ether as an anesthesia, aspirin, and malaria medicine which are made without use of animals. She also mentions morphine, which has no effect on cats, and aspirin which poisons cats and dogs but has no effect on horses.

In conclusion, the writer of the text thinks that the use of animal for medical experiments is mandatory for human relief, but the professor opposes this opinion and wants it to be abolished.