Sam Cusick’s article does an efficient job of reporting the
facts in a neutral style even without comments from the USDA. The furthest from
objectivity Cusick ventures is when he reports “… a cat was ‘unintentionally’
burned…” The impartial article provides us with an opportunity to form our own
opinions without the often over-powering influence of pathos. However, the lack
of potential pathos also leaves important information left unexplained. Which
is why Eric Sandgren’s previously written article complements Cusick’s so well.
Sandgren makes it apparent he’s not writing to advocate for
animal testing, but rather to explain the “whole story” with the help of logos,
ethos, and pathos. He gains logos when he compares the cats undergoing cochlear
transplant surgeries to a human procedure making us believe it to be a humane
operation. There’s also identification in this for those who have gone through
an operation feeling as though they were taken care of.
He provides all the ethos and pathos necessary for a
successful article in two back-to-back sentences. In the first he states that
their laboratory is “world-renowned” and “significantly advanced the field of
hearing research” convincing us that they are more than just a lab with an
animal treatment violation. He then continues to say that their studies
“provide and refine technology to help deaf children hear.” His subtle approach
makes it more than effective because he doesn’t overuse this easy in to win us
over, he only briefly mentions the children. This also raises a question that
only pathos can provoke. If Sandgren’s statement is true that research on cats
is the best method to answer their questions, which do we sacrifice, the
children or the cats?
Although I don’t have an obvious answer to Kim’s question,
this leads me to wonder if certain circumstances might deserve the help of
animal testing.
No comments:
Post a Comment