A2. Who’s Harassing Whom? By Marianne M. Jennings

Who’s Harassing Whom? is about a a woman in the work force talking about how relationships in the workplace have changed because men are afraid of being called on sexual harassment, leaving women and men relationships in the workplace almost nonexistant. This article is meant for middle aged people in the workplace. The purpose of it is to show that women and men can work in the workplace together without having to worry about sexual harassment all the time.
Logos are things that appeal to the mind, reason, logic, and intellect of the reader. An example of a logos from this article is “The fear is justified. An accused rapist, after all, receives better treatment than an accused harasser. The rape defendant is entitled to due process, the presumption of innocence, and his day in court. When a man is charged with sexual harassment, the employer’s response will be swift, decisive and one-sided.” This explains why men are scared to make business friendships with women in the workplace because once an accusation is made, they are automatically assumed guilty.
Pathos are things that appeal to your emotions or feelings. An example of a pathos from this article is “The most damaging result of sexual harassment law is the chilling effect is has on men in the workplace. Mentoring, which I had from descent and honorable men and without which I would not have survived 30 years ago, is a lost art.” This causes the audience to feel sympathy for the innocent men this has affected that would never intend to harass women in the workplace.
Ethos are things that refer to the writer’s character, voice, credibility, morals, and values. An example of a ethos from this article is “Like tenants who claim ‘constructive eviction’ due to horrible living conditions yet remain on the leased premises, the legal claim of women that their working environment is hostile doesn’t jibe with their own decision to remain.” The author believes that if a situation is so dangerous that a serious complaint must be made, it is morally wrong to remain in that type of situation.
Some weaknesses of the article are that she has never experienced sexual harassment before so she doesn’t know how women that have had this experience and she doesn’t have a first hand account of someone that has been a victim of sexual harassment. Some strengths of the article are that she has credibility because she has worked in different high risk environments for sexual harassment for thirty years and she has a good use of pathos, logos, and ethos.

I need to work on punctuation variety, punctuation titles, punctuation problems, and misplaced modifiers.

A3 Gay
The word gay has been around since the 12th century from old french gai. Into the 20th century gay was used to describe having a merry or lively mood, or being bright or showy.
The seventeenth century started a new meaning for the word that is still around today, it started being used as a noun for homosexuals. Now the word gay is commonly used to describe homosexuals and it is also often used to say something is rubbish or stupid, like the phrase "that is so gay." The meaning of the word gay has really changed through out the years and people in society do not really like the new meaning of the word and it has a lot of controversy around it.

A5 Animal Testing
My research topic is going to be about animal testing. Animal testing is a really controversial issue. Some people believe that animal testing is necessary to ensure the safety of products while others may feel that animals have rights and should not be put through the risk of dying just so we can have a product. I am interested in this topic because I think that animals have rights and that they should not have to go through the torture of product testing. There should be other ways of doing this without harming animals. Also animal testing is very expensive that we pay for with our own money that could be used for better things. Is animal testing good or bad? is animal testing beneficial?

Brittney -- Be careful that you do not have a strong opinion on this issue. It will be hard to write a good, unbiased research paper if you have already made up your mind. Make sure that you locate good sources on both sides of the debate; be sure to do your research evenly. I think your questions are a little broad at this point. For example, whether it is "good or bad" is not very specific. I think you could revise your questions a little to provide you with some more search terms. For example, your second question is good. You could also use words like "drawback" or "advantages" and "disadvantages" in your questions. These words (when combined appropriately) will help to narrow the scope of your research and get you better results when using the article databases and the library catalog. -- Leah

1. “Suffering for Science; Animal Testing. (Restricting Animal Research).” The Economist. 9 May 2009: 76EU. General Reference Center Gold. Print. 1 Nov. 2009. <__h____ttp://>____.__

The article talks about how animal testing is bad and should be fixed. Ways to making animal testing better are to restrict the use of animals, refine research to minimize distress, and replace testing on animals with alternative techniques. The article also some good statistics in it like more than 12 million animals are used in research each year most are mice and rats. The author also mentions that nothing is happening fast enough to stop animal testing. “Even though more and more amendments are written to be approved to do something over the animal testing they are never passed so animals are still treated the same in the lab.” It also provided good background information about animal testing such as the use animals that are offspring of animals raised in laboratories so they know their complete medical history.
The author of this article is against animal testing he thinks it is bad for the animals and alternatives should be used to do the same research instead of risking an animals life. To solve the problem of animal testing the author thinks we should find alternatives to animals to do the testing on. This information will be helpful in writing my paper because it gives me good facts on why we should not use animals for testing. The author opens and closes the article talking about the same thing to give the article a well rounded paper which also shows that animal testing is not getting better fast enough.

2. “New Front in Battle Over Studies of Animals (Humans Society of the United States’ pledge).” The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.42 (2008). General Reference Center Gold. Print. 1 Nov. 2009. <__>.

This article talks about a pledge sent to colleges to stop animal testing at the universities. However, only eighteen of them have actually signed the pledge and they were universities that didn’t even really do animal testing at their schools. The pledge is to not allow research animals to severe or unrelieved pain or distress, severe pain is described as intense pain lasting for more than a few seconds and moderate pain as pain lasting for hours or days. Many of the universities that will not sign the pledge say there is no alternative way to conduct the research and therefore it is necessary in some cases such as cancer research. Research universities are required to report all pain caused by animal testing to the U.S. Department of Agriculture; however, some research universities underreport the number of experiments. “This is a very sensitive issue for universities,” Barbara Gray, director of grants and contracts at the University of Georgia, said, “and frankly, if you can fly under the radar, you’ll be better off.”

This article gives good information for why animal testing should be still used and why it should not. Therefore I can use some of the information given to help me explain why animal testing is good and some of the information to help me explain why animal testing is bad. The article also gives some good statistics that I will be able to use in my paper. The author is a reliable person and you can tell this by his ethos, pathos, and logos. He is a trustworthy guy and the article is convincing which makes it a good source to use. At some points in the article I had some questions for the article and thought he made some overgeneralizations but most of the information seemed very well researched and thought out and made complete sense.

3. Regan, Tom. “Laboratory Animals.” The Animal Rights FAQ: Section 11. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. <__>.

This article is against animal testing. It is from the Animal Rights Group and it is all about why they think animal testing is bad and unnecessary. The group points out that animals are just like humans and nobody would make humans go through these type of testings unwillingly so why would you put animals through it. Another name for animal testing is vivisection, which is any use of animals in science or research that exploits and harms them. The people of this group think vivisection is immoral and should be abolished. They also give many examples of animal testings where no good came out of the experiment but the animal got hurt in the process for no reason.

This article is only about how animal testing is bad and should not be used anymore and that we should find alternatives to the process. This article will be helpful in supporting my argument against animal testing. It gives a lot of good evidence with quotes on why animal testing is bad.

4. Dixon, Thomas. “Animal Experimentation” 7 April 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. <__>.

This article gives both sides of the argument on animal testing. There are two reasons animal testing takes place; to find more about animals and to test substances and procedures to see if they are harmful and can be used on humans. These procedures include cosmetic products, medicines, and surgical techniques. Many people are really against animal testing while others see that is a necessary science. “Animal rights activists have resorted to trespass, violence, death threats, and hunger strikes in their single-minded (and sometimes illegal) mission to end this practice.”

This article will be helpful in explaining both sides of my argument because it is a debate that gives evidence for both sides at every point in the argument. Even though I got this article off the web it is from a reliable source, Thomas Dixon who is a research fellow of Churchill College in Cambridge, and it gives good information.

5.Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. Crown Copyright 2005. Print. 1 Nov 2009.

This is a whole book of statistics on all the scientific procedures on living animals that took place in Great Britain in 2004. It contains many tables with the information from the different experiments whether they were productive or not and whether the animals involved were killed or injured or not.

This will be very helpful in writing my paper because it will give me a lot of evidence for all of the statements that I make in my writing. This is a very good source because it is actual statistics for a whole year that will show the good and the bad parts of animal testing.

6. Monamy, Vaughan.
Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge University Press 2000. Print.
This book has good information on both sides of the argument on animal experimentation. It has the history and ethics, moral status of animals and the obligations of researchers, regulatory umbrella under which experiments are conducted, and alternatives to animal research. "The rights view is categorically abolitionist... this is just as true when animals are used in trivial, duplicative, unnecessary or unwise research as it is when they are used in studies that hold out real promise of human benefits... The best we can do when it comes to using animals in science is -not to use them," Reagan said.

This book will be very helpful in writing my paper because it offers evidence on both sides of the argument and reasons for all of the points made.

Eating for Credit by Alice Walters

Walters does not state her claim until the end of her article when she says “The study of food, and school lunch, should become part of the core curriculum for all students from kindergarten through high school.” This claim helps me understand the rest of the article and makes me want to read the article to know what goes along with it. I believe this claim to mean kids are getting obese because they do not know how to eat right and exercise that is why schools are starting to make this part of the curriculum.
Walters supports this claim in many ways.

  • There has been a rise in Type 2 diabetes
  • disease is preventable by diet and excersice
  • start getting credit for eating a good lunch
  • eating habits stick with people for the rest of their lives
  • in some schools students are involved in growing, preparing and sharing fruits and vegetables, math classes are required to measure garden beds, science classes study drainage and soil erosion, and history classes learn about pre-Columbian civilizations while grinding corn
  • engaging students in interactive education that gives them a new relationship with food
  • make school lunches more nutritious
  • when they are getting credit in a class and are involved in the growth of the foods then they want to taste them and try different things and its a better way of learning then just someone telling them they need to eat better
Walters claim is insightful because this issue is very important. The issue of the increasing amount of obese people in the US is a big problem. If kids of this age keep going at the way they are now they will end up dying before their parents because of all the medical problems they get from being obese. So by doing what Walters suggested in the article it will help stop the rise in obesity and hopefully make people live longer because they would not die of terrible heart conditions they could get from not eating right and not exercising. By offering credit for eating right in school kids would be more likely to do it because everybody wants to do well in school.
There is a lot of evidence in the article to support the warrant. Walters is a credible source to write about this topic because she actually started a program in a school to help students learn better eating habits. She is also the owner of a cafe and a very good chef. With these credentials what she is talking about is very believable and shows that she knows what she is talking about.
In the article she is only showing her side of the story which is saying that all Americans are obese and need to work on this. However, a lot of Americans are not obese and know how to eat right and exercise. This shows that she is only saying one side and needs to bring in the other side to get the correct message apart.

Brittney Cole

Leah Stahl
Paper 4
Say Yes to Animal Testing
Animal testing has been a very controversial issue since animal testing started. Around 350 animals need to have tested a drug before it will be tested on humans (“Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame). Animal testing is very important to find cures and drugs for humans and without it humans would begin to die at earlier ages and from every disease. Steve Glassner, writer for the Paraplegia News, thinks that animal research has been the most effective in most major medical advances (1).
Animals are used in testing for six main reasons according to Fox, “they have a simpler life span, a shorter life span, scientists can control the animals environments, they can use larger number of animals, they can use animals for critical experiments that are unethical to preform on people, and animals can be used to model human systems and their responses” (94). Animals that are used for research are even bred expecially for that reason so if scientists did not need these animals they would not be alive to begin with (Glassner 2). Animal testing is important to medical advances and it does not harm that many animals so it has more benefits than harms.
Animal testing is often very successful and has helped develop vaccines for diseases like rabies, polio, measles, rubella, and tuberculosis. The use of animal testing is to improve humans health; therefore, without animal testing there would be no new drugs for new hard to treat diseases. Without animal testing how would researchers be able to test the new drugs they come up with to tell whether or not they are safe and helpful to use on humans? Everything that researchers are using animals for the results do not just benefit the humans it also benefits animals (Fox 95). With all the new things researchers are finding out through these experiments they are not only finding out about new ways to help humans but they are also finding new ways to help the animals themselves. Therefore, the experiments are helping more people than they are hurting.
What is the difference in killing animals for experimentation and killing the animals for food? Hunters kill thousands of deer, moose, geese, ducks, rabbits, and other animals every year. These animals that we eat everyday were killed worse than the animals in lab because they were meant to be killed, while if the animals die in the lab it is only an accident. Hunters need to kill the animals they do for food, while the animals that die in the lab need to be killed to find cures for diseases.
If there are not alternatives to animal testing then researchers are obligated to continue using animals even if it is harmful to them because without the results we get from their testing we would have many more human diseases without as many cures (Fox 6). Bernard states nicely the importance of animal testing on products and medicines and how it is important to humans:
Have we the right to make experiments on animals and vivisect them?...I think we have this right, wholly and absolutely. It would be strange indeed if we recognized man’s right to make use of animals in every walk of life, for domestic service, for food, and then forbade him to make use of them for his own instruction in one of the sciences most useful to humanity. No hesitation is possible; the science of life can be established only through experiment, and we can save living beings from death only after sacrificing others. Experiments must be made either on man or on animals. (Monamy 12)
Michael Allen Fox, author of The Case for Animal Experimentation believes that “human welfare is a more vital concern than animal welfare and deserves more of our dedication because humans are more important than animals” (5). Many people believe there is not a moral reason you can not use animals because animals do not have morals, the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes, concluded “that animals have no souls, yielded the position that animals are mere machines, whereas humans might be machines somehow inhabited and animated by souls” (Fox 6). This is true because animals have no idea what is going unlike humans who can talk and express their feelings toward things. Animals are ours and we should be able to do what we need with them in order to help ourselves and them. Fox believes that “no meaning can be attached to the notion of anythings having totally self-contained value, and as animals cannot reflectively examine their lives to arrive at qualitative assessments about them, their lives also cannot have intrinsic value or value to themselves” (48). Animals are not part of the ‘moral community’ because they do not fill the characteristics that say whether something is moral or not. They are in Fox’s opinion “capable of long-range planning, anticipation consequences, choosing among alternative courses of action, taking responsibility, making and following rules, and the like that humans can engage in moral behavior, or behavior that affects others as well as themselves and that is subject to moral appraisal” (50). Animals do not posses these morals therefore it is not morally wrong to use animals in experimentation.
Humans are way more developed than animals, therefore it is alright to experiment on them because they are not the same as people. “It is still reasonable to say that animals do not think as we do, when we think in words, and that in so far as we are only conscious when we think in words, they lack conscious awareness,” Stephan Walker said (Fox 42). Humans can do a lot more than animals such as talk and function in the world around us. Animals, however, are just out there running around doing nothing like humans who work for a living expanding the world around us.
Animals that are used in the lab are very well taken care of. The animals used in the lab are very important to the researchers because if they are not healthy and in good condition then researchers could not get the best results from them. In order to get this the Animal Welfare Act has high standards for research animals in housing, feeding, cleanliness, ventilation, and medical needs. Researchers also make sure they the right animal and use the smallest number of animals to answer a research question (Glassner 2). Research animals are very important to answering research questions so it is important that they take care of them.
In conclusion, there are many important ways that animal testing help humans. Without it researchers would not be able to test the things they create to help cure diseases and therefore might never know if it will work or not. Animal testing is very important to find new drugs and cures to human diseases. Without animal testing researchers would not be able to find these things to help with human health. Many people support animal testing when they are given arguments to support it, otherwise more people do not.