You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

As public safety is of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer than for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. To what extent do you agree with above? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

It is argued that experiments on certain animals are unavoidable considering the risks if human beings use untested products. I think there is no harm in using animals for the benefit of a larger population.

The first reason why I agree to the opinion is because of the impracticality of testing on humans with products such as drugs. This is because some of these might have serious consequences on the physical and mental health of humans, and in rare cases, death. In order to avoid such circumstances, the best possible alternative available is to test drugs on animals.

When majority of the world population justifies the culling of animals for human consumption, it becomes quite rational to experiment on animals, and this is the second reason why I agree to this. In addition to this, not all animals are hurt while experimenting. Only certain animals like rodents, rabbits and guinea pigs are taken as subjects for study under controlled circumstances.

The third reason why I support the view is because it is beneficial to a greater number of people. To be clearer, if an antibiotic is tested on an animal, it can benefit the global population, not just some people in a locality. Apart from this, the animal which is tested is most likely to be used for another experiment.

To conclude, as far as there are some risks involved in experimenting products in humans and considering the negligible number of animals selected for testing, it is justifiable to test on animals, and this can be beneficial to a greater number of people.

Word count: 263