#t 3.How does the author argue?
3. How does the author argue?
#t By making a comparison between children's motive and scientists'motive in killing and mutilating animals;both children and scientists try to satisfy their curiosity about how creatures move; children's motive is selfish while scientists work for the advancement of human knowledge,i.e.to satisfy collective curiosity,therefore they are justified,but they may work for other purposes
By making a comparison between children’s motive and scientists’ motive in killing and mutilating animals; both children and scientists try to satisfy their curiosity about how creatures move; children’s motive is selfish while scientists work for the advancement of human knowledge, i.e. to satisfy collective curiosity, therefore they are justified , but they may work for other purposes
4.Is the author against all animal experiments?
4.Is the author against all animal experiments?
No.The author is not against all animal experiments.But the author is against killing or mutilating animals for pure intellectual curiosity
No. The author is not against all animal experiments. But the author is against killing or mutilating animals for pure intellectual curiosity
Text As we can see scientific experiments and animal protection can conflict with each other.We seem to hate no other choice but to sacrifice one for the other But which is a more sensible choice---to hold back our curiosity for the sake of animal protection or to kill animals for the benefit of science?Here Phil Gates argues for a way out of this dilemma(困境) What would you say to your children if you caught them cutting pieces off butterflies'wings to see how it affected their ability to fly?Killing insect pests is fair enough,but most of us would feel unhappy about our children mutilating animals for curiosity's sake
Text As we can see , scientific experiments and animal protection can conflict with each other. We seem to hate no other choice but to sacrifice one for the other. But which is a more sensible choice --- to hold back our curiosity for the sake of animal protection or to kill animals for the benefit of science? Here Phil Gates argues for a way out of this dilemma (困境) . What would you say to your children if you caught them cutting pieces off butterflies' wings to see how it affected their ability to fly? Killing insect pests is fair enough, but most of us would feel unhappy about our children mutilating animals for curiosity's sake