SAMPLE PAPER 2Using our PW and CT models, I concluded that Meg Greenfield's essay "In Defense of theAnimals" is better than Ron Kline's " A Scientist: I am the enemy". Although both theessays had the similar structure of one thesis statement followed by supporting arguments,Greenfield's essay defeated Kline on organization and development. After reading both theessays, I noticed that the writers were giving out two different messages. Kline in generaltalked about animal testing and the consequences of stopping these tests while Greenfieldspeaks of her personal opinion. She discusses how and why she started to believe theoverzealous animal rights activists. So, in their messages, the writers vary the most.Greenfield's arguments were consistent all the way through whereas one of Kline'sarguments was clearly inconsistent. As a result, I concluded that Greenfield had a betterorganization of her essay in comparison to Kline's paper. When it came to the developmentof the two papers, Greenfield's evidence was complete and she gave out two sides of thestory. Kline, on the other hand, was clearly biased and his examples were insufficient. Inaddition, Kline's subject was too general and broad to prove in two pages whereasGreenfield's thesis did not have such a high degree of difficulty. As a result, she had athesis that was doable.Following our PW model, I concluded that Greenfield's essay was better organized incomparison to Kline's essay. Both had clear thesis statements but Greenfield's argumentswere more consistent and logical to her thesis statement. Greenfield clearly follows ourPW model as her supporting arguments were matched to her thesis. Her four supportingarguments were directed to answering the question that was asked in the thesis, as to whyand how she had changed her mind about the animal rights activists. In each and everyargument, she talks about the different points of answering this simple question. Kline onthe other hand, fails to have arguments that are as organized as Greenfield's and ends uphaving incomplete ones. For example, Kline's thesis was about the impacts of stoppinganimal testing, but his first (some experiments on humans will succeed, most will fail) andthird (life saving drugs such as antibiotics, insulin and vaccines have been based on animaltesting) arguments did not logically fit his thesis and as result did not answer the questionscompletely. Because of these reasons, I concluded that Greenfield was more accurateorganized, followed completely our PW model while Kline was vague in his arguments.When it came to organization using the CT model, I concluded that Greenfield's essay wasbetter organized than Kline's essay. Greenfield followed all the rules of the CT model 1.Her four arguments were consistent and relevant with her thesis statement (following rules1 and 2) and she was aware of objections against animal rights people and addressed themwithin her arguments (follows rule 3). She does not use biased language in her arguments,for example she does not say negative things about the masses when she is talking abouther shift towards the activists. Also, her arguments were doable (follows rule 6) because ofthe fact that her thesis was more focused on her personal beliefs. As a result, I felt that shewas always in control when talking about her arguments.After analyzing Kline's essay, I concluded that the author did not follow most of out CTorganization rules. Although Kline had a clear thesis, saying what he was going to prove,one of his arguments were not consistent with his thesis statement. In his thesis, he tries toprove how animal testing has and will be good for humans and argues that if they arestopped, human health will be in jeopardy. But when it came to his third argument, he saidthat life saving drugs such as antibiotics, insulin and vaccines have been based on animaltesting and then, abruptly concludes that if testing is stopped, in future we won't see lifesaving drugs like these. Now, I believe that this is argument has internal flaws in it. Justbecause something happened in the past, does not mean that it will reap the same type ofsuccess in the future (e.g.: more new drugs based on animal testing). And he does not alsotake into consideration the technological advancements, which have altered quitesignificantly since those discoveries. Technology has opened up a lot of other options formedical science. So, I felt that Kline tried to use an argument that was inconsistent to histhesis. Moreover, he is trying to draw a conclusion out of a very general picture. Theinconsistency of the argument and the conclusion that he is trying to force out of clearlyviolates our CT model (rule 1) and thus fails the rules of inference. This argument is notIying in what is said but it does lie in the implications of what is being said here. I alsothought that Kline used biased language in both his arguments (some experiments onhumans will succeed, most will fail) and (One of the terrifying effects of the effort torestrict animal testing). This violated rule 4 of our CT model.In addition, Kline's second (terrifying effects of stopping testing) and third argument(These studies will effectively end if animal testing is stopped) are not logically separated.Kline's essay also violated rule 6 of our CT model, which states that arguments should be"doable". Kline talks about animals testing for medicine in general and this is a hugesubject, which cannot be covered in three arguments. If he had been more specific, then heprobably would have avoided the problem of losing his focus.When it came to the development of the two essays, I came to the conclusion thatGreenfield was again the winner, following our CT model. It was because Greenfield, inher essay "In defense of the Animals" conveys her message to the audience in a clear andconcise manner. She does this by using examples/evidence that are consistent with herarguments and follow the general rules of inference. In her arguments one to four, she usesexamples that are directly related to the arguments and she is always objective. Herexamples were objective in concluding how emotionally charged propaganda, testing in themake-up industries and phony kinship towards animals had affected and changed herstance in support the activists. Her examples were not self-contradictory and as a wholeproved what she said on the arguments. Although she does not use a lot of "objectivesources (facts and figures)", her supporting
View Full Document
Unlocking...