Writing a Critique and Evaluation of a Discourse
Instructions:
Read the article entitled “Better a beagle dies than a drug-dabbling teen” by Damien Grant
and write a critique of the text, incorporating the following:
a) An introductory paragraph that identifies the writer’s thesis (using your own words as far
as possible). This can consist of a few short sentences, or a single all-encompassing sentence
that encapsulates the focus of the writer’s work. You need to state whether you agree or
disagree with the writer’s viewpoint, and provide brief reasons for your stand.
(5 marks)
Your introductory paragraph should also contain a summary of the writer’s arguments.
You should state these briefly, enumerating them using signals such as firstly, secondly, etc.
(20 marks)
b) Your own assertions about the ideas and issues in the reading, supported by your own
arguments and evidence drawn from the two supplementary readings, which agree or
disagree with specific points in the reading. This incorporates and synthesizes the views of
others into your writing. Naturally, your critique will be more robust if you cite more
resources. You should recognize the author’s claim, reasons, evidence and assumptions.
(40 marks)
c) A paragraph recognizing the overall strengths and weaknesses of the author’s arguments.
You should also suggest how he could make his arguments more convincing.
(10 marks)
d) A concluding paragraph that sums up your main points and gives a sense of unity to the
whole essay. Develop your position and assertions pertaining to the key issues using
concession and refutation process.
(5 marks)
Your essay must:
e) Be clearly written, logically organized and grammatically correct. Employ resources to
synthesize the perspectives of others.
(10 marks)
f) Provide in-text citation and referencing in APA Style.
(10 marks)
Better a beagle dies than a drug-dabbling teen
By: Damien Grant
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10910990
Beagles are cute, with big eyes and floppy ears. Still, if I was hungry I’d eat one and if I am
going to take a drug I do not care how many cute beagles need to die for me to be safe.
The luddites marching against animal testing do not want psychotic drugs that humans are
going to consume to be tested on animals. Apparently, getting high is not a sufficient
justification for animal testing; which makes me wonder if they have ever encountered a
teenager.
If you are a parent, know this: your children will take drugs to get high. Do you really care how
many cute beagles need to be tested so your children will survive that extended period of
psychosis known as puberty?
Thalidomide is at the heart of the animal testing debate. The drug was tested on animals, found
to be safe and released to market as a sedative and proved effective in dealing with morning
sickness. For most mothers the drug worked well but at least 10,000 children worldwide
suffered heart-breaking deformities.
In response, the US and other nations imposed far more prescriptive regulations around animal
testing before drugs could be licensed. Because animal testing failed to detect the birth defects
in Thalidomide it has been argued that animal testing is ineffective, but comprehensive animal
testing on pregnant mammals was not done. When it was done, evidence of birth defects
emerged.
It is immoral to cause needless harm to another creature and I take comfort in the strict animal
testing regime we have in New Zealand. I was surprised to read more than 300,000 animals
were used for research, testing and training, but most of these appear farm animals testing feed
types.
Most laboratory tests are done on rodents and more than 80,000 of them made the ultimate
sacrifice, although for what purpose the data is opaque.
Like most western nations, New Zealand subscribes to the three Rs of animal testing:
refinement, to reduce suffering; reduction, to limit the number of animals used, and
replacement, where possible.
However, for much research there is no alternative to animal testing. The Royal Society in
Britain puts it bluntly: “Virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended
directly or indirectly on research on animals.”
I do not want to see cute beagles or even smelly rodents suffer, but I really do not care about
them.
I care about myself and those close to me. I want to live and live well.
I want to benefit from advances in medical research and I do not want to collect my son from
the morgue because he overdosed on a psychotic substance that was not sufficiently tested.
No comments:
Post a Comment