Toulmin Theory of Argumentation
No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment
Expert Bob Torres wrote, “A great many humans lack what we’d consider to be ‘normal’ rational faculties, yet no one seriously suggests that the mentally disabled be enslaved, or that they should be used for food or medical experiments.”
Claim: If we did not perform tests on animals, we could be missing valuable opportunities to save a human’s life.
Data: The testing of animals has given us the gift to advance. Much of our medical knowledge comes from testing on animals.
Warrant: If animals could refuse to be tested on, we would not have the ability to save lives and keep loved ones together to the best of our ability. Tests performed by scientists may harm an animal; however, if they did not perform those tests, then a human may die.
Backing: Think about this: an animal death versus a human death. Of course, the death of an animal is heartbreaking; the death of a family member is much more devastating. Almost everyone has shed tears over a family pet. Almost everyone will lament for a human’s death.
Rebuttal: Although we may mourn longer over the death of a human, a death is a death. A fact to consider is that many people only have a loyal pet to keep them company; therefore, they are going to mourn for their pet and may shed a few tears for a distant family member.
Qualifer: Obviously not everyone has had the privilege to love a family pet. Naturally, some people have terrifying memories of animals and do not care if animals are harmed. Not everyone has lost a loved one; therefore, some do not know the amount of pain that is involved; they would fight to the death to save an animal to harm a human.
Leave a Comment
No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
