"Cat research, after all the drama" and "USDA finds animal treatment violation in UW-Madison lab"

I think in the first article, “Cat Research, after all the drama” was written from a perspective of someone who is trying to use pathos to discredit PETA. Sandgren uses words like “theatrics” to describe how PETA has operated their campaign against the cochlear implant testing on animals, which signals his stance in the matter. I feel as though this is not an effective use of rhetoric, because using terms that let the reader know how you may feel personally, makes your situated ethos less of an effect. Animal rights are a highly contested matter and the author has his right to make his opinion known. It could be a life changing moment for someone to be able to hear, but we also need to be sure there are checks involved on how these innovations take place.

Animal rights violations are an important way to keep these animal tests in check. I think that by examining the way that we experiment on other living beings, it is helping make certain that the living, feeling and fellow beings are cared for in the way they deserve. Sandgren makes another appearance in the article and states that there have been procedures put in place that will “identify and correct” the issue of the cat being burned. I feel as though since this was just a random check that found this incident, that there may be other accidents that may not be identified in between checks. After reading this article, I found myself wondering where some of my hygiene and other products that I use come from. I would like to look further into this to help ensure that I am not contributing to unnecessary animal testing, and hope that there is research being done to make animals only an option for testing.