You are speaking to a person who believes that testing new medicines and medical treatments on animals is necessary for the advancement of science, and that it helps to benefit millions of people in the long run. You can think of three reasons why animals should not be used for medical testing.
• Testing unknown medications and procedures on animals is cruel and inhumane.
• Testing completed on animals does not reliably predict results in human beings.
• The testing procedures can have a negative impact on the environment.
Explain why the second argument would be most convincing for the person you are speaking to. Why would the first and third arguments not be as convincing? The second argument would be most convincing to this person because ____________________. The first argument wouldn't be as convincing because ____________________. The third argument wouldn't be as convincing because ____________________.
The second argument would be most convincing to the person because they believe in the importance of advancing science and benefiting millions of people. If it is shown that testing on animals does not reliably predict results in human beings, then it brings into question the effectiveness and validity of using animals for testing. This could make them reconsider their beliefs and potentially look for alternative methods of testing.
The first argument may not be as convincing to this person because they may prioritize the potential benefits to humans over the well-being of animals. They may see the necessity of sacrificing animals for the greater good of medical advancements.
The third argument may not be as convincing because the person may not see the environmental impact of testing on animals as a significant enough reason to stop using them for medical testing. They may prioritize human health and advancement in science over potential negative effects on the environment.