Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook’s “The Evil Right of Animals” first appeared in May 19, 2001. In this essay Epstein and Brook aim to convince their readers that medical testing on animals is necessary. “Scientist are close than ever to finding cures for AIDS, cancer, and other deadly illness. But more research and testing are needed and much of it must be done on animals.” (Epstein and Brook qtd.). Pathos, specific evidence, and logical thoughts are techniques Epstein and Brook skillfully use to create a strong, convincing essay. Epstein and Brook begin their essay by use of pathos describing “Scientist are close than ever to finding cures for AIDS, cancer, and other deadly illness.”(Epstein and Brook qtd.). This technique immediately captures the reader’s interest. When human emotions are involved, persuasion usually is very effective.
Although, the authors are addressing to everyone, but this technique is effective because it can touch the heart of people who have lived a personal experience related to the subject. For example, people who have suffered an illness would be mostly moved and motivated to agree with the message expressed by the authors. In this case, by the selection of their words, tone and intensity Epstein and Brook succeeded in transmitting an emotional and convincing argument.
Also, they discuss the violence of protesters, the effect this violence has on the companies and individuals involved in the field, and the consequences the world would face were these professionals not allowed to further their work. “-there has been a series of violent attacks on people and property linked to the company. Eleven cars belonging to Huntingdon employees have been firebombed, a senior manager had a caustic substance thrown into his eyes by a protester, and the company’s managing director was seriously beaten by masked assailants-.”(Epstein and Brook qtd.). This example clearly provides support for the fact that Epstein and Brook use human emotion to convince the audience that SHAC’s members are being such as “terrorists”.
Shortly after capturing the reader’s interest with human emotions, the authors continue using relevant and specific evidence. The authors cite a brief note from a journal: “Eleven cars belonging to Huntingdon employees have been firebombed, a senior manager had a caustic substance thrown into his eyes by a protester, and the company’s managing director was seriously beaten by masked assailants.”(The Wall Street Journal qtd). Other relevant evidence is that according to the director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA qtd.) said: “-Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animals’ cause-.”(Alex Pacheco qtd.).
Therefore, they prove that SHAC’s members are a threat for the people who are working to find a cure for these diseases. It is important to mention that animals are amazing creatures and everyone should take care of them, but it is impossible to believe that people -called “extremist”`- do such acts against human beings who just want to help to other people. As well, the authors describe the dangers of a world without medical testing, as well as the benefits that come of this testing. To prove the aforementioned, Epstein and Brook use the citation of the director of Last Chance for Animals: “If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me.”(Chris De Rose qtd.).
Logical thinking is the third outstanding technique used in this essay. At the end of the essay, the authors make comparison. They cite the basic principle of animal rights: “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. To abide by this principle, we must leave animals free.”(PETA qtd.). Then, the authors’ state: “This is a formula for human extinction since human survival and progress depend on our ability to kill animals when they endanger us, eat them when we need food, run tests on them when we fight disease.”(Epstein and Brook qtd.).
Another relevant phrase which lead or – leading- to logical thinking is when they say: “animal rights advocates want to make the progress of medical science impossible–so that rats may live” (Epstein and Brook qtd.). This particular claim help make their argument stronger. However, through effective comparison the authors lead their readers to logically infer that animals are important, but they are not above humans.
The authors used strong statement throughout the whole essay. Although, the authors use reliable evidence, one could say that they could be manipulating certain information. To emphasize this point, the authors may be overreacting in some statements; for example, when they call “terrorists” to SHAC’s members. It is obvious that Epstein and Brook purposely used the techniques in a planned way. This allowed them to create a specifically designed essay that was beneficial in helping them present their ideas.
Epstein, Alex and Brook, Yaron. “The Evil of Animals Rights.”Ayn Rand for Individual
Rights. Michael Chiavaroli & Associates. Convio. 19 May. 2001. Web. 9