Week 8 Writing Homework
- December 4, 2024
- 6:46 pm
- 34 Comments
Writing Homework :
Topic: Can animal testing be ethical/ should it be allowed?
400 words
Interview questions: What is your favourite subject and why?
1. Can you tell us about a project or assignment you’re particularly proud of?
2. How do you handle challenges in subjects you find difficult?
3. What strategies do you use to stay organised and manage your workload?
(100 words each)
Please upload your homework as a comment below:
34 thoughts on “Week 8 Writing Homework”
Imagine weeping as your calloused hands signed off your child’s death warrant, your child shaking and sobbing as they felt excruciating pain, no hope could be found in their eyes. Imagine doctors watching their medical utopia unravel before their eyes, everything they had worked for had faded into darkness. How would you feel? This is an example of what might happen if animal testing is banned, because it will slow medical progress, will kill many lives and animal testing provides more stability healthwise.
First of all, banning animal testing will slow medical progress. It will remove an entire stage of medicinal development and will be therefore too risky for human subjects without animals. If there are serious epidemics like the new bubonic plague, this could threaten our entire existence without animal testing. If we did have animal testing, we would be able to quickly come up with a vaccine to immunise communities without risking any human lives.
In addition, a few animal lives lost doesn’t compare to the millions of humans worldwide. If the prototypes for animal testing result in death, it doesn’t compare to the many people globally it will save. Banning animal testing would mean killing billions of people just for a few animal lives. It simply doesn’t balance, so we need to prioritise the group that faces the most severe consequences.
Furthermore, animal testing provides health stability. If there are sudden outbreaks of a virus, we can easily solve the problem by quickly testing vaccines without knowing a big risk. But if we can only test it on humans, then it may take longer to know if it is safe enough for a human to test, therefore losing more time and lives. Animal testing is simply the less risky option even if we lose some animal lives.
Hence, animal testing is ethical because it provides a safer option for everyone. Animal testing accelerates medical progress, risks less lives and more stability.
FEEDBACK
B H- FEEDBACK
Should Animal Testing be Ethical
Envision helpless children suffering and dying from bubonic plague, chickenpox, or cholera, staring helplessly as they sign their child’s death warrant. The hospital full of people coughing, gasping for air, and running to the toilet in panic and overworked doctors falling to the ground in exhaustion, with not a sliver of hope remaining for them. These are the consequences if animal testing is illegal!
Firstly, animal lives are worth less than human lives. For example, it is better to have three dead mouse or rats than three dead people. Also, testing on three rats could save millions of people and even billions. If it was illegal, then these billions could die. If it were not, then they could be saved from the disease. Even if the weren’t to die, they could still be suffering. As said before, animal lives are worth less than human ones.
Secondly, it is quicker to use animals than humans as they do not need to wait for a volunteer. By the time there is a volunteer, thousands could already be dead. By allowing animal testing to be legal, the deaths can be avoided.
Lastly, easily preventable diseases wouldn’t be cured. If it wasn’t for animal testing, then even the easiest diseases like the cold could be fatal. (It can actually be fatal.) If animal testing was legal, it’s possible for even harder diseases like cancer to be cured.
In conclusion animal testing should be legal because, animal lives are worth less than human lives, it is quicker to use animals than humans and easily preventable diseases wouldn’t be cured. This is why animal testing should be legal.
Should Animal Testing be Ethical
FEEDBACK
Tony Jian- FEEDBACK
the one below is the word docx
Imagine a world, where you are given a 25% chance to live, if diagnosed with an illness. This will be the world if we ban animal testing.
First, let’s talk about the lives saved and lost. We all know that human lives are the most valuable. Many say that animal’s lives will be lost, though this may be true the amount of lives taken from animals will easily be dwarfed by the number of human lives saved from animal testing.
Next, is time. We all know that willingly dying isn’t a common thing, and there is a 99.99% that they will say no. If you add onto the 1 person, per 1 minute, there won’t be any time to wait, so why not do it on things who don’t need to be asked, and just be able to do. These are animals, and you might say that this will cause extinction, we can use one of the overpopulated pests, rats.
Last, it prevented diseases. 7 million people died from Covid-19, and some experts say that 6 million would’ve died if animal testing wasn’t banned. Some day, we might even find the cure to cancer, but all of that is only a dream without animal testing.
In conclusion, I hope you agree with me that animal testing should be ethical.
FEEDBACK
grace.creek- FEEDBACK
Envision a dystopian world, trudging past thousands of hospital rooms – the monotonous weeping, blending into soft weeping beading in suspension as you come closer and closer to the naked soul of death itself. You look into the room of your child, his screaming faint from exhaustion as his grey eyes devoid of hope and joy. You feel the suffering cascading down his body, his gaunt body cold and lifeless. Horror, ache, and pain coursing through your face as you inevitably sign of your child’s death warrant, giving your last words like a pen to an obituary. The surgeon who has feebly operated countless times on your child lies tiredly, watching all medical advancements peel back; unearthing decades of medical breakthroughs, watching, with sunken eyes, watching the unraveling of the modern Dark Ages.
This is our reality if we ban animal testing. Taking away this medical necessity will only lead to ill-fated treachery. If we illegalize animal testing, it will cause countless human deaths, waste an insurmountable amount of potential vaccines, and cause much more trouble than it could have ever intended. To save the future of medicine, humanity, and millions of human lives – animal ethicality is the last problem we should take into account.
First and foremost, if we make animal testing illegal – it will cause millions of human deaths; turning the medical community back to mere sticks and stones. Animal testing is a staple of practicing medicine, as they serve as a convenient and quick way to test drugs – not needing them to volunteer or submit themselves. They are available anytime and anywhere and without doubt or protest, making them both efficient and in high quantity. Taking this away will destroy medical progress, making advancement much slower and more hazard-prone. After all, isn’t medicine meant to save humans? If we instead test on humans, it’s contradictory to what medicine was intended for – and can even cause human pain and life-long trauma, considering that it is much more difficult to euthanize humans than animals. Is this really what is ‘ethical’?
Furthermore, it will waste the life-changing potential of so many vaccines. If we can’t test on animals, humans will be left alone in a time of crisis without a vaccine, and the notation of ‘experimental’ will likely deter many potential volunteers. Not only that, but revolutionary vaccines need a lot of tests, sacrificing many human lives alongside saving. Even though many may consider animals ‘equal’ to humans, without medical testing capabilities, many are turned just into another pest. Take for example rats, they eat food and assisted in the bubonic plague – killing millions of lives. Without medical testing, they will simply continue to deplete food supplies and spread diseases, and with no emotionally redeeming qualities like a cat or a dog would have, they are harmful to society and useful in no way whatsoever. If we don’t allow animal testing, many animal lives will be meaningless and slaughtered regardless, many humans will be either traumatized or in excruciating pain, and groundbreaking medical research will lie to collect dust in the tome of medical history.
On the contrary, people may say that animals have lives too and should be valued equally as a human soul. This, though, is not necessarily true – as some animals simply do not have *value* in our economy, serving only as pests and experimental subjects. Take this into consideration – are 3 rats worth 3 humans? Are 15 beetles worth 15 prosperous human lives? Is a billionaire worth a bee? And even if they are worth the same, is testing on 5 fish to save millions ethical? From a practical standpoint, the answer is no, but the creates of this law insinuates that even a single rat can equate to a billion humans, contrary to the beliefs put behind the law. The meaning of ethical is different behind each eye, and sacrificing humanity at the cost of cows that were destined to be eaten anyways fair? Additionally, animal testing equates to a measly fraction of the amount of animals that are harvested for religions, eaten and sold on a daily basis – making it so that this impact is insignificant. Animals are eaten and experience unbearable agony out in the wild anyways, making our efforts worthless. And physically, it is impossible to make everyone stop eating animals or sell them – then is it really worth it to stop animal testing that may even be harmless and beneficial?
In conclusion, we clearly shouldn’t stop animal testing as it’s impact isn’t broad or deep at all, it comes at the cost of many human lives and paves the way to a stockpile of wasted medical potential. It can also accelerate medical progress, save more lives and even be beneficial to the animals. Afterall, many vaccines are made especially for animals, so aren’t we actually destroying their lives? Clearly, animal testing should be legal.
FEEDBACK
Benjamin Yang FEEDBACK
Dear PM Anthony Albanese,
Should animal testing be ethical? That is a broad question that has been floating around in our minds without a valid answer. So I shall state my opinion to this question. I strongly believe that animal testing should be ethical because it reduces the suffering of humans, creates benefits to humanity and reduces the suffering of us if we are tested. Now that you know my three reasons, let’s have a deeper dig into animal testing and why it should be ethical.
To start off, animal testing reduces the suffering of humans. Animal testing is to test new products and drugs on animals. This is a clear reduce of us suffering. Furthermore, 99% of animals who are tested are not harmed at all. This statistic clearly shows that animal testing usually doesn’t have any downsides to it. I mean, 1% of all animals tested are not harmed. That is a very small number and thus we do not need to worry. We can test on animals by trying out cures for diseases and other disorders. Hence, animal testing must be ethical because it reduces the suffering of us humans because of diseases and disorders.
Additionally, animal testing creates benefits for humanity. We can develop more drugs, cures and immunisations to protect human beings. There are many illnesses that do not have a cure and by testing on animals a cure, we could save not millions but maybe billions! Clearly, animal testing can save many lives even if we are testing on a rat or a mouse. Small changes can lead to big differences definitely secures its spot in this argument. We learn from our mistakes when testing on these animals. Thus, we should make animal testing ethical for the benefits for humanity.
To finish off, animal testing is ethical because it reduces the suffering of humans. Now you may think that I am just repeating what I am saying right? However, it would reduce the suffering of us humans when we are doing the same. You may think about it, humans are heavily more essential than animals. If we are tested we would be in a huge risk and could wipe out more than one hundred thousand people! That is a large amount and we wouldn’t want to have another Great Dying but for humans. Therefore, I believe that animal testing should be ethical because it reduces the suffering of humans in a way that it reduces the suffering of us if we are doing the same.
To sum up, I believe that I have stated my points clearly and in a well organised way. I strongly believe that animal testing should be ethical because it reduces the suffering of humans in two different ways and there are a lot of benefits for humanity. I believe that I have answered the broad question sufficiently and accurately.
Sincerely,
Kingston
letter for animal testing wk 8
FEEDBACK
Cherie – FEEDBACK
Oops some typos lemme fix that real quick 😅
Should Animal Testing Be Ethical?
Animal testing has been around for a long time. It was first used back is the third and fourth centuries, when practicing medical procedures before using them on animals. But should it really be ethical to make animals suffer against their own free will? Or should we do something about it? I believe that animal testing is ethical and should keep being a way to test drugs, vaccinations and surgical techniques.
The thing is, animals are a part of our lives. Even though we keep animals like cats and dogs as pets, pests like rats can be used in testing. This can be a way for us to get rid of creatures we don’t want if they die to the vaccine and help protect humans at the same time. This can lower the risk of people dying to viruses and diseases while getting rid of common pests that ruin our households.
If one rat dies, who cares? Animals die everyday so what difference would it make if just one extra rat dies that day? Nothing of course. It would just be more of natural thing and it’s knot like anybody would notice. On the other hand, testing on rats could work successfully and make the rat immune to the effects of that certain virus. Even though the rat may not live long, at least it can enjoy a life filled with joy and the fact knowing that it is safe and that the vaccines tested on it will make it immune to a series of illnesses that can possibly be fatal to it.
In my opinion, animal testing is completely ethical and is an efficient way to both kill pests and protect animals from potentially deadly diseases and viruses. It is a way of life and safety and in my opinion should stay around for at least until it is proven guilty of a mass extinction of the human race and all the other living beings on the planet. If it wasn’t for animal testing most of us would still be dying early around the ages of 30 to 35 to now weak illnesses like the flu and the cold.
There we go
FEEDBACK
Jessica Xie – FEEDBACK
writing homework-week 8
Animal Testing Should be Allowed
FEEDBACK
ran.d.f.chen – FEEDBACK
Week 8 Writing
Should Animal Testing be Sanctioned
Point
The debate of whether animal testing should be eliminated or should still be tolerated. Well I think that trialling medical drugs on animals first should still be legal. A few mere animal lives could rescue millions of unfortunate humans from death. Furthermore, if humans do not experiment on animals, millions of lives could be eradicated, and with no one to test on, this sorrowful disease would spread more than ever without being cured. Hence, animal testing should be allowed.
Example
Visualise your child, bawling in agony. Their skin transitions into a sickening pale colour. Can you apprehend their melancholy screams engulf the room. Can you feel the faith inside of you disintegrate into ashes. How would you perceive this. This is the disconcerting thing that would occur if animal testing was prohibited.
Consequence
Without animal testing, lots of decades of medical treatment would be obliterated and would Earth would be infested with never ending diseases and flus. It would leave a colossal gap in human medical research. Earth’s species would all be lost and forgotten. It would be a ragged, loathed planet, bombarded by illnesses. Thus, animal testing should stay on Earth to stay away form the consequences.
Solution
Keeping animal testing alive has more advantages and benefits than removing it does. All population on Earth might have been extinct if animal experimenting never existed. Some may think it is savage to conduct animal trials but without it, we would have to say bye to our lovely world and welcome hell, where everyone is stuck in excruciating throbbing. Hence, animal testing should still be legitimate.
FEEDBACK
Bhupender _- FEEDBACK
This is my homework
Should Animal Testing be Allowed
This is my homework 🙂
Should Animal Testing be Allowed
FEEDBACK
Gina – FEEDBACK
my homework is here.
Week 8 Writing Homework
FEEDBACK
Ethan Lee- FEEDBACK
Scholarly Writing Wk 8
Imagine you’re watching your beloved son scream out in excruciating pain as he writhes around in an alabaster white hospital room. Blood-curdling screams echo through the hospital. Elegies of the departed wail, mourning for their loved ones. Doctors watch in pure shock as their wonderful utopia of medicine unravels before their eyes, our world enshrouded in darkness. Global epidemics scar and wound the earth. A new Bubonic plague erupts every year, all because we humans banned animal testing where two rats lived but millions were killed.
Animal testing, while controversial, has been a cornerstone of medical and scientific advancements. Throughout history, the use of animals in research has led to groundbreaking discoveries that have saved millions of lives. From the development of life-saving vaccines to the creation of vital medical treatments, animal testing has played an indispensable role in improving human health and well-being.
Consider the eradication of diseases such as polio and smallpox, which were once devastating global threats. These victories were achieved through rigorous research and testing, much of which involved animals. Without the ability to study these diseases in living organisms, our understanding and ability to combat them would be severely limited. Animal testing has not only extended human lifespans but has also enhanced the quality of life for countless individuals.
Furthermore, animal testing remains a necessary component in the development of new medications and treatments. While alternative methods such as computer models and cell cultures have made significant strides, they cannot yet fully replicate the complexity of living organisms. Testing on animals provides critical insights into how new drugs and treatments will interact with the body’s intricate systems, ensuring they are safe and effective for human use.
Critics argue that animal testing is inhumane and unethical, as it subjects animals to pain and suffering. They highlight that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing distress, and their use in experiments should be minimized or eliminated. However, stringent regulations and ethical guidelines are in place to ensure the humane treatment of animals in research. Oversight committees monitor and enforce these standards, and researchers are constantly exploring and adopting alternative methods to reduce reliance on animal testing. Until these alternatives can fully replace the need for live testing, the use of animals remains a necessary and justifiable practice to advance human health.
In conclusion, while the ethical considerations surrounding animal testing are complex, the benefits it has provided to humanity are undeniable. Banning animal testing outright would hinder medical progress and jeopardize countless lives. Therefore, it is imperative to strike a balance between advancing human health and ensuring the ethical treatment of animals, recognizing that animal testing remains a vital tool in our pursuit of scientific and medical breakthroughs.
FEEDBACK
Phuong Nguyen – FEEDBACK
Envision weeping, unconscious children, lying in stained scarlet hospital beds. Stressed surgeons rushing from door to door, helping the patients most in need. In the farthest door, you can hear morbid screams coming from parents and children, who are both in excruciating pain. All the walls and doors are alabaster white, except for the slight splash of blood on them. Seeping out of the door beside you, is deep red blood. This is the dreadful result of animal testing being deemed not ethical.
Currently, most countries in our world test newly found medications on animals such as rats and rabbits. The reason why these animals are tested on is because they are pests. Imagine how significantly our population would drop if we tested our discoveries on humans? A lot of failed discoveries will result in lots of deaths. This is why testing on animals is ethical.
Firstly, it is crucial that animal testing is ethical because our lives matter more. According to the World Atlas, there are 7 billion rats worldwide, and there are 8 billion people. Our lives matter more than rats because they are pests to everyone. They eat your pets food and crops, and breed and overpopulate your house. Imagine walking into your grotty house, and rats are scurrying beside you. The rancid smell hurts your nose. It travels up, poisoning everything. Leaving behind a horrible scent.
Finally, it is imperative that animal testing should be considered ethical because animals are only used in the most harsh circumstances. Before the animals become tested, scientists do a lot of other research to ensure that the medication is safe. If they cannot figure it out, then they have to test it on the animals.
Some people may think that animals have feelings and they can’t give you permission to test them, and animals show body signs when they’re facing death. But in most of these circumstances, animals very rarely die.
In conclusion, testing on animals is ethical because our lives matter more than animals lives, and that animals are tested in the worst circumstances. So nest time you see a product that says ‘Tested on animals’, be grateful that you aren’t being tested on and that animals aren’t even being harmed.
Kobe
🙂 🙂 🙂
FEEDBACK
Shane Chee – FEEDBACK
Imagine yourself weeping as your wrinkled, calloused hand signs off your child’s death warrant. your child is writhing with exctrutiating pain before your eyes. Imagine the doctors watching their medical utopia unravel before their eyes, everything they discovered had faded into darkness before their eyes. How would you feel? This is what will happen if animal testing is banned. It will slow medical progress and will kill abundants of people.
Banning animal testing will slow medical progress. It will expunge many stages of medical development and will be too tumultuous for human subjects without animals. If there are serious epidemics like the new Covid 19, this could threaten our entire existence without animal testing. If we did have animal testing, we would be able to quickly come up with a vaccine to immunise communities without risking any human lives.
In addition, a few animal lives lost cannot be compared to the millions of humans worldwide. Banning animal testing would mean killing billions of people just for a few animal lives. It simply doesn’t balance, so we need to prioritise the group that faces the most severe consequences.
Furthermore, animal testing provides health stability. If there are sudden outbreaks of a virus, we can easily solve the problem by quickly testing vaccines without knowing a big risk. But if we can only test it on humans, then it may take longer to know if it is safe enough for a human to test, therefore losing more time and lives. Animal testing is simply the less risky option even if we lose some animal lives.
Hence, animal testing is ethical because it provides a safer option for everyone. Animal testing accelerates medical progress, risks less lives and more stability.
FEEDBACK
sagar.khandre@gmail.com – FEEDBACK
Envision children weeping on their red-stained beds, while parents- coughing and sneezing- stand by, helpless and weak. Surgeons rushing from one room to another while patients suffer excruciating pain and fall unconscious onto their bed. All the walls and doors are alabaster white, except for the slight splash of blood on them. Seeping out of the door beside you, is deep red ooze. Patients crowding onto one bed because there is no room. They call for a doctor but only the wind answers them. This is the dreadful result of animal testing being deemed unethical.
Proponents of animal testing argue that it plays a crucial role in advancing medical and scientific knowledge. Historically, animal testing has contributed to the development of life-saving treatments and vaccines, including insulin for diabetes, cancer treatments, and vaccines for diseases like polio and rabies. Animals, especially mammals, share many biological similarities with humans, making them valuable models for understanding diseases and testing the safety of new drugs. In some cases, animal testing is seen as a necessary step to ensure that medical products are safe for human use.
Additionally, animal testing is often necessary when no suitable alternatives exist. While advancements in technology have led to the development of alternatives like computer simulations or cell cultures, these methods cannot fully replicate the complexity of an entire living organism. For example, understanding how a new drug might affect an entire biological system, including metabolism, immune response, and organ function, requires the use of animal models. In these cases, animal testing serves as an essential step in ensuring human safety.
Humans are more important than animals. Animals also have a larger population than humans. If one animal is gone than that can be easily replaced. There are in total over 8 million animals SPECIES and approximately three million individuals on average for every species on Earth. That would be 3000 animals for every human on Earth. This simple yet important data proves that humans are way more crucial to save. Also, there are a lot of pests on Earth such as rats, who eat all the crops and destroys the sturdy foundation wood of the house. Reducing these populations will save numerous human lives and bring down the number of pests. Humans are most definitely more important than animals.
Overall, animal testing is ethical and should be allowed, it plays a crucial role in the development of science, it is necessary when no alternatives exist, and human lives are more important than animals. These are only three reasons why animal testing should be allowed.
FEEDBACK
Eric Xu – FEEDBACK
Helpless parents signed off their child’s death certificates, the world spiralling into a relentless, unforgiving, bubonic plague. The once populous streets teeming with noise transformed into a bare-bone path where nobody dared to walk. Numerous different test vials full of potential antidotes sat quietly in labs, scientists refusing to test them on animals as rodents and insects walked freely through the almost abandoned streets, unaware of the full-scale epidemic crisis. Innovative medical technology sat half-baked, only mere blue-prints, the government refusing to continue its development and implementation. All colour was flushed out of the patient’s face as they lay lifeless, one of the many victims who succumbed to the devastating chronic disease. This stark scenario illustrates the potential consequences if governments make the decision to prohibit the use of animal testing. This is why I fervently believe that governments banning animal testing and experimenting altogether would not be a sagacious plan. This is because prohibiting animal testing would restrict the creation of innovative medical technology, it could launch the world into a world-wide epidemic, and the suffering of one animal is well worth sparing the torment of billions. Therefore, in my opinion, I ardently believe that banning animal testing and experimenting is not a wise idea.
To begin with, refusing to test animals would restrict the innovation of critical medical technology. If animal testing was prohibited, it would be exceptionally difficult to safely test new medical technological advancements or theories. Consequently, this would leave us vulnerable and susceptible to a plethora of diseases and plagues with little to no way to counter them. Furthermore, banning animal testing would limit our knowledge of the human body, as researching and testing innovative ideas would be nearly impossible, setting our development in medicinal technology and methods back by decades. This in turn would leave us even more vulnerable as viruses would grow stronger and we would be left stranded with poor, under-developed medical technology. Isn’t it insurmountably clear that banning animal testing would ultimately lead to a decline in the development of medicinal knowledge and technology, leaving us wide-open for unknown viruses and cataclysmic plagues to take full advantage of our weaknesses?
Secondly, the banning of animal testing could potentially lead to a world-wide pandemic. As I mentioned before, banning animal testing could lead to under-development in medical technology and knowledge, leaving us vulnerable to viruses and plagues. If this went on, it could very well turn into a full-scale, world-wide pandemic. After emerging victorious after a devastating battle with COVID-19, we were battle-scarred and lost many people who were unfortunate victims of the virus. Now, it could be even worse, with a stronger, more resistant virus attacking when our advancements in medical technology would be restricted. For example, the Black Death, an infamous bubonic plague that wiped out half of Europe’s current population at the time (50 million people) caught many by surprise, causing panic and disorder. Luckily, the Europeans were able to bounce back by implementing strict rules to stop the plague from spreading. However, if this happened again on a bigger scale, innocent people would lose their jobs and kids would have to once again go through the perils of home learning. Many would be traumatised and panic-stricken, desperate to find a way to make ends meet. Isn’t it clear that if animal testing was banned, it could potentially send the world into a full-scale pandemic, devastating myriads of people?
Finally, the pain and suffering of one animal is definitely worth saving torture and pain of the 8 billion people that inhabit this world. As I described in my opening paragraph, many would suffer to the hands of a disastrous plague if the government banned animal testing. The world would spiral into shrouded darkness, many dying, just because we didn’t have the nerve to kill a rat or two. Though the animal can’t consent to being tested on, the bottom line is that it could save many humans, dare I say, the entire race, just for a few deaths of minor animals. Electric powered towers stood tall as the radiant heat of the sun glinted warmly. The smart city was home to many, giving shelter and protection to humans and animals alike. Innovative technologies were already being developed by the second, and not a single whiff of air was filled with pollution. This clearly shows that humans have the capability to change the world for the better, or the worst, and though we’ve done some horrible things to our planet, the death of a single animal could very well be a game changer, to change the world and make it a better place, because all animals and humans deserve a future like that.
FEEDBACK
Lana Dang – FEEDBACK
Interview questions:
1. Can you tell us about a project or assignment you’re particularly proud of?
So one of my favourite projects that I’m proud of is FLL. Basically, FLL is a competition incorporating mechanisms and coding. FLL is short for First Lego League, and it’s a project that our school participated in. It is basically when different schools compete together on which school can code their robots to complete the tasks and gain the most points. I am particularly proud of this project as it enabled me to showcase my coding skills and enhance them. I was also able to improve my social skills and get to know my teammates better as we worked close together.
2. How do you handle challenges in subjects you find difficult?
I handle challenges in subjects that I find difficult by practising those types of subjects a lot. For example, if my weakness is Mathematics, then I would prioritise it and work on maths more days than other subjects. I would also have different approaches to the subject. So if I knew I was going to finish off English quicker, then I would finish it off then move onto the harder subject, so i kind of alternate between my two strategies.
3. What strategies do you use to stay organised and manage your workload?
One strategy that I use to stay organised and manage my workload is to order everything in priority, from most important to least so I can get them done in a quick and efficient way. For example, if homework is due by tomorrow or today, I would put that in front of my list, then the next as the most amount of homework. Another way is keeping track of what I’m doing in a diary. I usually write things down in a diary or a piece of paper on what I need to do, for example, English – Steve writing and English test, then GA – Albert GA test.
Is it an ethical decision to allow animal testing
Animal testing has been one of the most controversial topics in our daily lives. While some may believe that animals are not worthy of humans, and others completely disagree. I believe that animal testing is not a go because it is harmful to animals and because it is cruel to do so. Also, animals are not a reliable source.
Many companies, specifically, medical and beauty companies, use animals as a test project, naive about the consequences of the animals. Even though we may think it is okay to test products on them, it may be extremely unethical as it would be more harmful than needed. Who knows what harm we could do to the animals if we used them as a test subject? According to Humane Society International, animal testing can be harmful in ways of distressing them and placing them in a position where they are suffering.
Second, animal testing is unethical because it is cruel to the animals. Even though there are kinder ways of animal testing such as taking animals that are naturally sick, they may still suffer afterwards from the testing. Just imagine the tormenting hands of the surgeon poking and prodding the animal in all different places, making them yelp and squeal in pain. Imagine poor animals slumping down in distress because of immense torture, unable to blink again.
Lastly, animals are not a reliable source because they are not really humans. Even though we may have similar genetics and DNA, they are not completely identical. Animals are definitely not humans (besides ourselves/homo sapiens) and if a test works on them, the product still has a chance that it could have mass fatality in our life. For example, a skin care cream works on an animal and the company releases the product. Many people have skin problems such as rashes and eczema, but one problem… Just because it works on the animal, does not mean it works on us humans. So in the end, the skin cream worsened the situation of the people, sending them to hospitals. Do you really want people suffering because of animal testing?
In conclusion, even though animal testing may be beneficial in a way, not animal testing outweighs the other argument because it is harmful to them, it is extremely cruel, and is not a reliable source. Can’t you imagine a world without animal testing and a world where you can enjoy the company of cruelty free animals?
FEEDBACK
Tina205- FEEDBACK