Should Animal Experiments Be Banned

“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.”

Annotated response

6 correction notes

Showing 6 correction notes.

In the age of scientific advancement, experiments are everyday phenomena, on animals or humans. Animal testing has been a matter of concern and debate for many decades now. Many organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), World Animal Protection, and many others are vocal about this practice. But, many feel that these experiments are necessary for the evolution of science, especially in medical areas. Therefore, in the subsequent paragraphs, both views will be discussed, and a conclusion will be derived.

In the first place, it is a fact that scientists or researchers need subjects for ascertaining whether the effective or not. It is not possible to employ them on any willing humans as it can be fatal to their lives. Sacrificing for multiple trials is a loss for the whole kind as every individual contributes to the betterment of society. Moreover, including an individual in these examinations has its own hassles as family members and dependents may not have the same opinion as to the individual ready for self-sacrifice. This might lead to legal battles and moral dilemmas. Even if licit documents are signed, people tend to find loopholes that may be problematic for the researchers and the organizations at large.

Although these human studies can be convoluted, conducting them on unprotected animals is unwarranted. Including animals to understand the reactions of the newly-developed medicines or vaccines can be trouble-free compared to humans as no one is dependent on them. But, continuous attempts can have an effect on the continuity of the species. Furthermore, humans may be of high caliber, but they do not have the right to other organisms on earth. Apart from that, various alternate techniques like in-vitro testing and simulators that have been developed can be used to perform these experiments without causing impairment in any life form.

In the end, I would like to conclude that instead of depending on animals or humans for testing drugs, cosmetics or chemicals, it is better to come up with alternative ways and without causing ethical issues.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 6.0

The response covers both views and states a clear opinion, with some relevant supporting arguments about human trials, species continuity, and alternatives. Its main limitations are unevenly developed ideas, occasional imprecise word choices, and a tendency toward formulaic framing rather than deep analysis.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

6.0

The response addresses both views and gives a relevant opinion with some support, but ideas are unevenly developed and the argument sometimes drifts, such as the extended focus on legal complications of human trials.

Coherence and Cohesion

6.0

Progression is generally clear with logical paragraphing and linking devices, though cohesion is at times mechanical and some referential links are loose or unclear.

Lexical Resource

6.0

There is a sufficient range of topic-related vocabulary and some less common items, but occasional imprecision and awkward collocations, such as 'the whole kind' and 'trouble-free', reduce accuracy.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

6.5

A mix of sentence structures is used with generally good control, including complex forms, though there are noticeable errors in agreement and phrasing that do not seriously impede meaning.