There has been no time in history where scientists have to face an ethical dilemma over whether in vivo testing on animals is morally justified or it is otherwise. On the one hand, an oversimplification of experimentation on non-human animals can be deemed ruthless, let alone inhumane. On the other hand, however, imposing a ban on animal research could possibly carry potential adverse implications as fas as human's sake is concerned.
With respect to the abolishment of animal testing, the matter in question boils down to animal welfare as well as animal rights. This is due to the fact that each and every living creatures from primitive bacteria to socially complex chimpanzees are brought to this Earth with equal rights to exist. Notwithstanding this implied contract of equity, humans throughout the course of time repeatedly rid other animals of freedoms by means of hunting or domesticating. On top of that, we now breed and keep certain classes of animals, such as rodents, primates or fishes, in laboratory settings and take their life for scientific purposes. This raises the debate whether such deed as dissecting live mammals, for example, is considered animal abuse. Should the academic community persist in exploiting animals, not only are regulations needed to standardize animal caring, but governmental supervision would also be of the essence.
Even though the moral downside is clear for us to see, substantial practical applications are undeniable. Conducting trials of a newly discovered substance on other organisms instead of directly on the human body results in fewer preventable and unnecessary death in the case where the lethal side-effects of that substance were not expected. Based on the aftermath of the experiment, the prototype of a hypothesized drug can be either withdrawn or modified so that the same reaction will not occur in humans. To illustrate, although a pharmaceutical company came up with a chemical agent which was safe on papers, the resultant death of a lab rat might lead to immediate suspension of the drug without the need for further testing on humans. This is owed to the fact that lab rat cells and tissues are comparable to those of our body and in situations where the drug is harmful to the rat’s body, it might be to ours as well.
In conclusion, performing laboratory testing on animals is neither humane nor vain, but a peculiar mixture of construction and destruction. If it had not been for the death of those animals, innovation would have died out.
- In many nations people in huge cities either live alone or in small family units instead of a large extended family Is this a positive or negative trend 78
- Some people think that when recruiting, companies should aim to take on people who are innovative and able to work independently while others considered they should recruit people who are able to work in a team and follow instructions. Discuss both views 89
- There is no need to go out to see social cinema because it is better to see them on the TV or computer screen Do you agree or disagree 84
- The pie charts below show the main reasons why students chose to study at a particular UK university in 1987 and 2007 78
- Research shows that business meetings discussions and training are happening online nowadays Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 350, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...ever, imposing a ban on animal research could possibly carry potential adverse implications as...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, well, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as, with respect to, on the other hand, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 41.998997996 155% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2118.0 1615.20841683 131% => OK
No of words: 414.0 315.596192385 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11594202899 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01400497726 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 176.041082164 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594202898551 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 506.74238477 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 41.0715838506 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.375 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.875 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3125 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161461560774 0.244688304435 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0515916086036 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0420707592774 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0947685568019 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.044546314623 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.0946893788 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.72 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 78.4519038076 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.