Research a news story with different perspectives include different online outlets. (approx.500 words)
Animal testing is a highly divided subject, with a great deal of passion, emotion and ideas on both sides regarding the ethics of this practice. Generally, the scientific community is strongly in favour of animal testing, and the medical breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of animal testing are also considered reason enough to continue the practice, with the aim of reducing human suffering and saving human lives. However, a major ethical issue with animal testing is that it involves pain, suffering and discomfort under some circumstances. Two articles from The Telegraph and Huffington Post present different perspectives on this issue, as discussed below.
In both articles, emotive language is applied strongly so that the writer's viewpoint is immediately established. Words such as 'outraged' and 'bombarded' are utilized in the Daily Telegraph article, such as to create an element of shock and thus be convincing to the reader.
Likewise, phrases such as 'medical breakthroughs' and 'take for granted' in the other article are used to emphasise the particular view, in this case being that animal testing is necessary and critical in developing medical advancements. The emotional and imaginative impact has the power to move the audience to a decision or action.
Statistics are used frequently in both articles, and the effect is clear: it appeals to the reader's sense of reason and bolsters credibility. In the case of the first article, this also arouses the sympathy of the reader towards the animals sacrificed. The title of the article, Animal testing experiments kill one animal every hour', is in itself a statistic. By incorporating facts and not simply emotionally charged text, the writer is trying to show that his position is not simply based on personal beliefs,