Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion
It is correct that drugs and other commodities are frequently experimented on animals before they are safe for human use. When I attend towards the point of view that animal experimentation is ethically false, I would to vote restricted numbers of animal testing for the enhancement of drugs.
On the one side, there are obvious moral opinions opposing animal testing. To utilize an ordinary case of this operation, laboratory mice may be injected a disease so that the efficaciousness of a current drug can be estimated. Opposes of such study discussed that people have no privilege to subjugate animals to this type of suffering and that the existence of all creatures should be regarded. They trust that the advantages to people do not verify the undergoing ended, and that experts ought to use other methods of study.
On the other side, trustworthy choice to animal testing may not always be obtainable. Upholders of the utilization of animals in health study trust that a particular number of undergoing on the section of mice or rats are able to be verified if people existence are rescued. They debate that opposes of study might experience distinctly if a part of their own families required a medical care that had been improved through the utilization of animal testing. In my opinion, I approve with the prohibition of animal experimentation for non-medical commodities, but I experience that it may be an important devil that where new medicine and medical processes are affected.
In summary, it appears to me that it would be false to prohibit experimentation on animals for essential medical study until impartially officious choices have been enhanced.
Sentence: On the one side, there are obvious moral opinions opposed animal testing.
Description: The fragment opinions opposed animal is rare
Suggestion: opinions opposing animal
Sentence: Opposes of such study discuss that people have no privilege to subjugate animals to this type of suffering and that the existence of all creatures should be regarded.
Description: The fragment study discuss that is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace discuss with verb, past tense
Sentence: They debate that opposes of study might experience distinctly if a part of their own families required a medical care that had been improved through the utilization of animal testing.
Description: The fragment families required a is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace required with verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Sentence: In summary, it appears to me that it would be false to prohibit experimentation on animals for essential medical study until impartially officacious choices have been enhanced.
Error: officacious Suggestion: officious
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 6.5 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 274 350
No. of Characters: 1373 1500
No. of Different Words: 152 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.069 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.011 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.966 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 101 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.708 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.602 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5