The experimented value was drastically different from the accepted value, which caused the percent of error to be extraordinarily high. The experimental marshmallow’s energy per gram was .073 Cal/g while the accepted marshmallow’s energy per gram was 3.33 Cal/g. The percent error for the marshmallow was 97.8%. The experimental CHEEZ-IT’s energy per gram was .531 Cal/g while the accepted CHEEZ-IT’s energy per gram was 5 Cal/g. The CHEEZ-IT’S percent error was 90%. The experimental Cheetos’ energy per gram was 1.08 Cal/g where the accepted Cheetos’ energy per gram was 5.36 Cal/g. The percent error for the Cheetos’ was 79.9%. The experimental Chex-Mix’s energy per gram was 1.52 Cal/g where the accepted Chex-Mix’s energy per gram was 4 Cal/g. The Chex-Mix’s percent error was 60%. The conclusion that was made was that through out the entire experiment there was a tremendous amount of error made due to the fact that the percent error was incredibly high.…
The green vector remains in the same position as the mouse. The length does not change unless you direct it to by making larger circles. The blue vector changes depending on the speed at which you are making the circles. The quicker the circles, the longer the blue vector becomes.…
Imagine an animal’s feeling of panic and fear as it is about to be killed by a hunter or the isolation experienced as an animal sits in a laboratory, separated from its family and natural habitat, waiting to be harmed by harsh testing methods. Imagine the frightened state of a mother or father watching their innocent baby being captured. After considering the brutality towards animals in these scenarios, take into consideration the health benefits humans receive from different parts of these animals. Imagine health risks avoided through testing on animals first instead of on humans. Does human benefit justify the harm and killing of animals? Linda Hasselstrom’s essay “The Cow Versus The Animal Rights Activist” and Tom Regan’s “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” argue this question through analysis of the reason for killing animals, the method in which they are killed, and the morality of the killing of animals.…
Jeremy Rifkin 's article, “A Change of Heart About Animals” argues that animals are more like humans than we imagine and as a result should be treated with the care that they deserve. Rifkin develops and supports his argument using facts about the animals and these facts end up touching hearts. In order for Rifkin to get his point across he uses a smart technique by using pathos and plays with the emotions of his audience. Rifkin loves animals and his passion and love evokes emotions that the audience can feel. Animals can feel and have emotions similar to ours. in agreement with Rifkin, I argue that it is wrong and inhumane to kill or abuse animals because they feel, they deserve to have space and should be valued as much as humans are It is wrong no animal should be killed due to abuse or testing, it is wrong and inhumane.…
In the article “Ethical Boundary-work in the Animal Research Laboratory” Pru Hobson-West writes about the three obstacles in regards to the occasion of talking about the ethics behind animal testing. The three “boundaries” that Hobson-West refers to are the need for animals to be tested with reference to the advancement of medicines, the impacts of “Home Office regulation” and the third is the difference between Human and Non-human animals (1). One of the main arguments that supports the use of animals in scientific experiments stated in this article is that when deciding whether or not it is ethical to use animals, you must determine whether or not humans have a higher moral value than animals (660). Another argument is whether or not restrictions…
Garner combines an examination of the politics and philosophy of the issues relating animals and the nature. The book includes major theoretical and empirical incidents such as the campaigns and public controversies over the export of live animals and the use of animals in research, the impact of genetic engineering on animals and the latest developments in the debate over…
In her essay “A Feminist Primer for Philosophers of Science,” philosopher Janet Kourany describes science’s ugly history with women. From perpetuating androcentric societal biases to neglecting women’s health needs, science, Kourany argues, has been instrumental in decelerating feminist social progress. Now, in a social rebirth of feminism, does science have an obligation to undo its harms by joining the feminist movement? To answer this question, I first explain how science has slowed the progress of women in the United States. Then, I define the terms I use to evaluate Kourany’s two arguments in favor of science joining the feminist fight. As does Kourany in her essay, I then contemplate broader conceptions of science’s interplay with feminism…
The purpose of this text is to give a little insight as to why animal testing is important and what the companies doing this testing go through with animal activist groups. With the animal testing, possible cure for AIDS, other deadly diseases, and maybe cancer lie upon these creatures. The authors try to explain that the animal activist groups are trying their best to keep this from happening.…
Indeed, Raising the issues of animal welfare is impossible to develop clear guidelines to judge by. On the article “Hooked on a Myth” states “we should adopt a precautionary ethical approach and assume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary fish suffer.” However the principle is no different between men and animal. Working out animal freedom in an actual practice that gain the concerns and role of ethics. Animals should be treated with compassion and grateful. A right…
“The Evil of Animal ‘Rights’” by Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook addresses the issue of medical testing on animals. The authors describe the dangers of a world without medical testing, as well as the benefits that come of this testing. They discuss the violent nature of protesters, the effect this violence has on the companies and individuals involved in the field, and the ramifications the world would face were these professionals not allowed to further their work. Epstein and Brook strongly support medical testing on animals, however they fail to completely deliver their view due to alienation of their audience.…
Animal cruelty and interhuman violence has gone up since the beginning of generation X. Animal cruelty happens very often and sometimes it happens in front of the generations eyes. Since the generation sees these acts they seem to be immune to this cruelty. Interhuman violence happens every day with huge crime rates. Many interhuman violence actually comes from a past of animal cruelty. Multiple reasons play a factor in this uprising that researchers have viewed. Having these creates a spiral of different issues mostly bad. The causal relationship of animal cruelty and interpersonal violence has a direct relationship with the economy and culture of our society.…
For many years, the debate of whether animals have moral rights or not has been thrown around court rooms, social media, and protests. Arguments are made defending animals and suggesting that they should be protected and recognized in human society. Medical researchers are scrutinized and harassed by these supporters for their part in animal testing and medical investigation. Scientific breakthroughs have been made, which has transformed the development of modern medicine. Lifespans have elongated and lives are being saved in every corner of the world, yet somehow, this is still debated as if it is the wrong thing to do. Research animals are pertinent tools of the medical world and humans are entitled to use them as such. As human beings with…
The essay indicates humans’ behavior towards nonhuman animals. I will explain how factory farmers treat their livestock compared to non-factory farmers. I plan on bringing forth humans moral responsibilities to nonhuman animals.…
Animals are usually confined to small cages and being exposed to harmful fumes for human benefit.In their “Animal” Journal, Elisabeth H. Ormandy and Catherine Schuppli claim that "the use of animals in research fosters a diverse range of attitudes, with some people expressing the desire for complete abolition of animal research practices, while others express strong support (392)." Animal testing has stirred up an argument between two opposing sides regarding the ethics of the practice. The two opposing sides are those who disagree with animal testing and those who agree with animal testing. Nuno Henrique Franco author of "Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective" state that "Animal experimentation has played a central role in biomedical research throughout history. For centuries, however, it has also been an issue of heated public and philosophical discussion."(238) Those who are in favor of animal testing believe that it is beneficial to improving medicine. Those who are against animal testing believe that it is harmful to animals and that their are other ways to benefit humans. Being an animal lover, I oppose of animal testing for several different reasons. The first reason being animals are being subjected to all forms of suffering and isolation. The second reason is animals are not…
“In many cases, although not all, the use of animal experimentation is not only justified ethically, but essential to maintain the health and wee-being of human beings.” (Pro)…