Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiment. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?
Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed.
However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiment.
Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?
In recent times, while certain individuals suppose the phenomenon that animals should not be experimented for science and ought to be banned, its proponents believe that crucial investigations have to be carried out on animal bodies. From my point of view, discoveries conducted on animals cannot be accepted in our community and there are other numerous choices for experimentation instead of animal species.
There exist a variety of reasons to explain why it is not acceptable for experimentation on animals. First and foremost, the point which is mentioned is immorality in animal lives. In fact, animals are brought up for the purpose of scientific discoveries, so they are unable to have a long life span as normal wild species and are seriously injured or died due to machinery tools or toxic substances they consume. Moreover, the investigation ought not to include animals in their investigation as animal play a pivotal role in the biodiversity. For example, in some special experiment, the laboratory has to bring various wild species from the natural environment for the aim of removing their genes to replicate and create more individual with similar features, resulting in loss of habitats and biodiversity loss.
It is obvious that there are others options that can alter to animals in the lab. The first alternative to take into account is using human cells from blood’s volunteer. Despite the challenges of encouraging volunteers to donate their cells for science, these cells can be used in experimentation with more accuracy and morality than animals. Another method is that lowering the number of animals in scientific test in the situation that there are few engaging volunteers . For instance, common experimentation may require big animals such as rats or rabbits, however, we can replace these animals to worm or small animals with the same function, reducing the degradation of biodiversity.
In summary, it is undeniable that experimentation on animals should not be justified due to the notable reasons of immorality and biodiversity loss. Therefore, the mentioned approaches of human cells and using small animals instead of mouses or rabbits in lab for scientific discoveries.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"suppose the phenomenon" -> "believe the phenomenon"
Explanation: "Suppose" is too vague and informal for academic writing. "Believe" is more precise and appropriate for expressing an opinion in an academic context. -
"its proponents believe" -> "its proponents argue"
Explanation: "Argue" is more specific and academically appropriate than "believe," as it implies a more formal and evidence-based stance. -
"have to be carried out on animal bodies" -> "must be conducted on animal subjects"
Explanation: "Carried out on animal bodies" is awkward and imprecise. "Conducted on animal subjects" is more formal and clear. -
"cannot be accepted in our community" -> "should not be accepted in our society"
Explanation: "Our community" is too informal and vague; "our society" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing. -
"there are other numerous choices" -> "there are numerous alternative options"
Explanation: "Numerous choices" is redundant; "numerous alternative options" is more precise and avoids redundancy. -
"immorality in animal lives" -> "immorality towards animal lives"
Explanation: "Immorality in animal lives" is grammatically incorrect. "Immorality towards animal lives" corrects the preposition and clarifies the meaning. -
"are unable to have a long life span as normal wild species" -> "are unable to live as long as normal wild species"
Explanation: "Have a long life span" is awkward and verbose; "live as long as" is more natural and concise. -
"are seriously injured or died" -> "are seriously injured or die"
Explanation: "Died" should be "die" to maintain the present tense consistency in the sentence. -
"the investigation ought not to include animals" -> "the investigation should not involve animals"
Explanation: "Ought not to include" is overly formal and slightly archaic; "should not involve" is more contemporary and clear. -
"animal play a pivotal role" -> "animals play a pivotal role"
Explanation: "Animal" should be plural to match the subject "animals." -
"the laboratory has to bring" -> "laboratories must bring"
Explanation: "Has to" is informal; "must" is more formal and suitable for academic writing. Also, "laboratory" should be plural to generalize the action. -
"for the aim of removing their genes" -> "to remove their genes"
Explanation: "For the aim of" is verbose; "to remove" is more direct and concise. -
"create more individual with similar features" -> "create more individuals with similar features"
Explanation: "Individual" should be plural to match the context of creating multiple entities. -
"lowering the number of animals in scientific test" -> "reducing the number of animals in scientific tests"
Explanation: "Test" should be plural to match the context of multiple experiments, and "reducing" is more precise than "lowering." -
"there are few engaging volunteers" -> "there are few willing volunteers"
Explanation: "Engaging" is unclear and informal; "willing" is more specific and appropriate in this context. -
"common experimentation" -> "common experiments"
Explanation: "Experimentation" is too broad and informal; "experiments" is more specific and suitable for academic writing. -
"using small animals instead of mouses or rabbits" -> "using smaller animals instead of mice or rabbits"
Explanation: "Small animals" is vague; "smaller animals" is more precise, and "mice" should be used instead of "mouses" for the correct plural form. -
"in lab for scientific discoveries" -> "in laboratories for scientific research"
Explanation: "Lab" is informal; "laboratories" is more formal and appropriate. "Discoveries" is too broad; "research" is more specific and academically precise.
Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7
Band Score for Task Response: 7
-
Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by discussing both sides of the argument regarding animal experimentation. It acknowledges the viewpoint that some believe animal experimentation is necessary for scientific discoveries, while the author clearly states their opposition to this view. However, the essay could benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the necessity of animal experimentation in certain contexts, as well as a more thorough exploration of alternatives. The response touches on alternatives but does not fully develop the discussion on whether these alternatives can adequately replace animal testing.
- How to improve: To comprehensively address all elements of the question, the essay should include a more balanced discussion of both sides. For instance, the author could briefly outline some potential benefits of animal experimentation before firmly stating their position against it. Additionally, expanding on the alternatives with specific examples and discussing their viability would strengthen the response.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The author presents a clear position against animal experimentation, stating that it is immoral and harmful to biodiversity. This position is maintained throughout the essay, which is a strength. However, the introduction could be clearer in stating the author’s stance, as it initially presents both sides without a strong lead-in to the author’s own viewpoint.
- How to improve: To enhance clarity, the introduction could explicitly state the author’s position in a more straightforward manner. For example, the author could rephrase the opening sentence to clearly indicate their opposition to animal experimentation right from the start. Consistently reinforcing this position in each paragraph would also help maintain clarity.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas against animal experimentation, such as immorality and biodiversity loss. However, the support for these ideas is somewhat limited. For instance, while the author mentions the negative impact on biodiversity, they could provide more detailed examples or statistics to substantiate this claim. The alternatives presented are relevant but lack depth and specific examples that illustrate their effectiveness.
- How to improve: To effectively present and support ideas, the author should aim to provide more detailed explanations and examples. For instance, when discussing the use of human cells, the author could elaborate on how these cells are used in research and provide examples of successful studies that have utilized this method. Additionally, including counterarguments and addressing them could strengthen the overall argument.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the moral implications of animal experimentation and discussing alternatives. However, there are moments where the argument could be more tightly focused. For example, the mention of "reducing the degradation of biodiversity" could be more directly linked to the main argument about the immorality of animal experimentation.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the author should ensure that each point made directly supports the central thesis. This can be achieved by linking back to the main argument in each paragraph and ensuring that all examples and explanations are relevant to the discussion of animal experimentation and its alternatives.
By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay could enhance its overall effectiveness and potentially achieve a higher band score in the Task Response criteria.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7
Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7
-
Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument against animal experimentation, structured around two main points: the immorality of animal testing and the potential alternatives. The introduction sets the stage for the discussion, and each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument. However, the logical flow could be improved; for instance, the transition from discussing the immorality of animal testing to the alternatives feels abrupt. The use of phrases like "First and foremost" indicates a structured approach, but the connection between ideas could be more fluid.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using clearer transitional phrases to guide the reader through the argument. For example, after discussing the immorality of animal testing, a transition such as "In light of these ethical concerns, it is essential to explore viable alternatives" could provide a smoother shift to the next point. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that relates back to the thesis can help maintain focus.
-
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which is crucial for clarity. Each paragraph addresses a distinct point, such as the ethical implications of animal testing and the proposed alternatives. However, the paragraphs could benefit from more uniformity in length and depth. The second paragraph, for example, is quite lengthy and could be broken down into two separate paragraphs to enhance readability and focus.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, aim for a balanced structure where each paragraph contains a single main idea supported by evidence or examples. Consider breaking longer paragraphs into smaller ones, especially when introducing a new concept or alternative. This will help maintain the reader’s attention and make the essay easier to follow.
-
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "First and foremost," "Moreover," and "In summary." These devices help to connect ideas and guide the reader through the argument. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and some transitions feel repetitive. For example, "Moreover" is used to introduce additional points, but varying the language could enhance the essay’s sophistication.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "Moreover," alternatives like "Additionally," "Furthermore," or "In addition" can be employed. Additionally, using contrasting cohesive devices such as "On the other hand" when discussing opposing views can create a more nuanced argument. Practicing the use of these devices in different contexts will also help improve overall cohesion.
By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, ultimately leading to a stronger overall argument and a higher band score.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6
Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6
-
Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, with terms like "immorality," "biodiversity," and "scientific discoveries." However, there are instances of repetitive phrasing, such as "experimentation on animals" and "scientific discoveries," which detracts from the overall lexical variety. Additionally, phrases like "crucial investigations" and "removing their genes" could be expressed with more varied vocabulary to enhance the richness of the language.
- How to improve: To improve lexical range, the writer should aim to incorporate synonyms and related terms. For example, instead of repeating "experimentation," alternatives like "research," "studies," or "testing" could be used. Similarly, using phrases like "scientific breakthroughs" or "research advancements" could diversify the vocabulary related to scientific discoveries.
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains some imprecise vocabulary usage, such as "the point which is mentioned is immorality in animal lives," which could be more clearly articulated as "the primary concern is the immorality of using animals for experimentation." Additionally, phrases like "the investigation ought not to include animals in their investigation" are redundant and could be simplified for clarity.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on clarity and conciseness. For instance, instead of "the investigation ought not to include animals in their investigation," a more precise expression could be "animal involvement in research should be avoided." Furthermore, using specific terms related to the topic, such as "ethical considerations" instead of "immorality," could improve the precision of the vocabulary.
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "individuals suppose the phenomenon" (should be "individuals suppose that"), "the investigation ought not to include animals in their investigation" (should be "the investigation ought not to include animals"), and "degradation of biodiversity" (though the term is correct, the context could be clearer). These errors can distract the reader and impact the overall impression of the essay.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully or use spell-check tools before submission. Additionally, practicing spelling common academic vocabulary and terms related to the topic can help reinforce correct spelling. Keeping a list of frequently misspelled words and reviewing them regularly can also be beneficial.
In summary, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable command of vocabulary, there is room for improvement in terms of range, precision, and spelling accuracy. By incorporating more varied vocabulary, ensuring precise usage, and focusing on spelling, the writer can enhance their lexical resource and potentially achieve a higher band score in future essays.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7
Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7
-
Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences such as, "In recent times, while certain individuals suppose the phenomenon that animals should not be experimented for science and ought to be banned, its proponents believe that crucial investigations have to be carried out on animal bodies." This sentence effectively combines multiple clauses, showcasing the writer’s ability to construct complex ideas. However, the essay also contains several simpler sentences that could be combined for greater fluency. For instance, the sentence "There exist a variety of reasons to explain why it is not acceptable for experimentation on animals." could be rephrased to integrate more complex structures.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, the writer should practice combining shorter sentences into more complex ones and using different types of clauses (e.g., conditional, relative). For example, instead of saying, "Another method is that lowering the number of animals in scientific test in the situation that there are few engaging volunteers," the writer could say, "Another method involves reducing the number of animals used in scientific tests, particularly when there are few willing volunteers." This not only improves fluency but also demonstrates a higher level of grammatical sophistication.
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that detract from its overall clarity. For instance, the phrase "animals should not be experimented for science" is awkward and should be rephrased to "animals should not be used for scientific experimentation." Additionally, there are instances of subject-verb agreement issues, such as "animal play a pivotal role" where "animals" should be used instead of "animal." Punctuation errors are also present, such as missing commas that could help clarify meaning, particularly in complex sentences.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should review subject-verb agreement rules and practice rephrasing awkward constructions. Additionally, focusing on punctuation, especially the use of commas in complex sentences, will enhance clarity. For example, the sentence "In fact, animals are brought up for the purpose of scientific discoveries, so they are unable to have a long life span as normal wild species and are seriously injured or died due to machinery tools or toxic substances they consume." could be improved by breaking it into two sentences or using additional commas to separate ideas more clearly. Regular grammar exercises and reading well-structured academic texts can also help reinforce these skills.
Bài sửa mẫu
In recent times, while certain individuals suppose that animals should not be experimented on for science and ought to be banned, its proponents believe that crucial investigations must be conducted on animal subjects. From my point of view, discoveries made through animal experimentation should not be accepted in our society, and there are numerous alternative options for experimentation instead of using animal species.
There are a variety of reasons to explain why experimentation on animals is not acceptable. First and foremost, the point that is mentioned is the immorality towards animal lives. In fact, animals are raised for the purpose of scientific discoveries, so they are unable to live as long as normal wild species and are seriously injured or die due to the machinery tools or toxic substances they consume. Moreover, the investigation should not involve animals, as animals play a pivotal role in biodiversity. For example, in some special experiments, laboratories must bring various wild species from the natural environment for the aim of removing their genes to replicate and create more individuals with similar features, resulting in habitat loss and biodiversity decline.
It is obvious that there are other options that can replace animals in the lab. The first alternative to consider is using human cells from willing volunteers. Despite the challenges of encouraging volunteers to donate their cells for science, these cells can be used in experimentation with more accuracy and morality than animals. Another method is reducing the number of animals in scientific tests in situations where there are few willing volunteers. For instance, common experiments may require larger animals such as rats or rabbits; however, we can replace these animals with worms or smaller animals that serve the same function, thereby reducing the degradation of biodiversity.
In summary, it is undeniable that experimentation on animals should not be justified due to the notable reasons of immorality and biodiversity loss. Therefore, the mentioned approaches of using human cells and smaller animals instead of mice or rabbits in laboratories for scientific research should be adopted.