They Say I Say Ch5, 1
Kelly Erbach
English 102
Templates for Disagreeing, with Reasons
Stanley Gershoff contradicts himself. On the one hand, he argues animal testing is a benefit to us because we learn new things every day. On the other hand, he also says it’s a terrible thing and people have gone as far as illegal attacks, such as flooding buildings and leaving bombs.
By focusing on how beneficial animal testing is, Gershoff overlooks the deeper problem of animal cruelty due to testing.
Gershoff is mistaken because he overlooks animals rights, although most animals do not have rights, they sure deserve it. Now a day’s only cats and dogs can go as far as legal protection.
I disagree with Gershoff’s view that animal testing is a good thing because, as recent research has shown, there are cases out there that show animal cruelty in the lab.
Templates for Agreeing
Gershoff’s theory of animal testing being beneficial is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of animal testing.
Gershoff’ is surely right about animal testing being beneficial because, as he may not be aware, recent studies have shown that animal testing has opened so many opportunities and saved lives of millions.
I agree that animal testing isn’t just where animals are being tortured, because my experience with research has showed that, in very rare cases animals are tortured, it’s very hard for a scientist to get funding for that type of experiment, as well as all the certificates they need to make it happen in the first place.
Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it boils down to
Templates for Agreeing and Disagreeing Simultaneously.
Though I concede that animal testing is not that bad, I still insist that it be banned.
Although I disagree with much that Gershoff says, I fully endorse his final conclusion the saying of PETA would not sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 lives is just outrageous.
Although I agree with Gershoff up to a
English 102
Templates for Disagreeing, with Reasons
Stanley Gershoff contradicts himself. On the one hand, he argues animal testing is a benefit to us because we learn new things every day. On the other hand, he also says it’s a terrible thing and people have gone as far as illegal attacks, such as flooding buildings and leaving bombs.
By focusing on how beneficial animal testing is, Gershoff overlooks the deeper problem of animal cruelty due to testing.
Gershoff is mistaken because he overlooks animals rights, although most animals do not have rights, they sure deserve it. Now a day’s only cats and dogs can go as far as legal protection.
I disagree with Gershoff’s view that animal testing is a good thing because, as recent research has shown, there are cases out there that show animal cruelty in the lab.
Templates for Agreeing
Gershoff’s theory of animal testing being beneficial is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of animal testing.
Gershoff’ is surely right about animal testing being beneficial because, as he may not be aware, recent studies have shown that animal testing has opened so many opportunities and saved lives of millions.
I agree that animal testing isn’t just where animals are being tortured, because my experience with research has showed that, in very rare cases animals are tortured, it’s very hard for a scientist to get funding for that type of experiment, as well as all the certificates they need to make it happen in the first place.
Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it boils down to
Templates for Agreeing and Disagreeing Simultaneously.
Though I concede that animal testing is not that bad, I still insist that it be banned.
Although I disagree with much that Gershoff says, I fully endorse his final conclusion the saying of PETA would not sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 lives is just outrageous.
Although I agree with Gershoff up to a