Rhetorical Analysis of Genre

This analysis will be basically based on a non-fiction genre relating to the ethics behind the use of animals used in animal experimentation. The article that has been selected for the rhetorical analysis is “Against the Use of Knowledge Gained from Animal Experimentation”, which is authored by Rebecca Tuvel. The question of using animals in experiments continues to raise debate, but there has been no significant efforts to question the use of the knowledge gained from such experiments. The use of knowledge gained from animal experiments is unethical and needs to be discouraged to stop the use of animals in experiments. 

In the article “Against the Use of Knowledge Gained from Animal Experimentation”, Rebecca Tuvel argues against the issue of using the knowledge gained from the experimentation of animals. This article falls under the non-fiction genre of writing specifically falling under the subgenre of essays. Under this subgenre, an author is able to give his/her own argument. Furthermore, the subgenre can be subdivided into either formal or informal essays. Therefore, the article is basically a formal essay as it involves a serious purpose, written in prose and involves learned arguments. The serious purpose of the article is to provide an argument with the fact that the use of animals for experimentation purposes has been considerably disputed. However, despite the considerable disputes, the using of this knowledge is less voiced. Therefore, the author tries to treat this issue by suggesting that the sanctioning of the epistemic benefits that come from animal experimentation is disrespectful to the animal victims in addition to sustaining the practice. She therefore terms the issue morally wrong as it involves the lack of justification of using the benefits of animal experimentation.

 Hence, in her point of view, the author provides an alternative way of challenging animal experimentation as a practice. Therefore, she provides a description of why the practice is morally wrong which is followed by the canvassing some of the arguments against the Nazi data use. She supports the argument that animal experimentation is morally wrong because of deontological grounds as well as consequentialist grounds. She clarifies this position by stating that, “It is thus pro tanto morally wrong”. As far as the rights of animals are concerned, the deontological theory provides that animals are entitled to rights that offer them the protection against being used for individual gain. In addition, she argues that animal experimentation is morally wrong because of the animal interests’ amount that is frustrated during the process of experimentation. Apart from this, Rebecca argues that just as human beings are protected from violation because of their mental superiority, animals should also not be violated just because they are termed to be mentally inferior. She also points out that the theory of animal rights protects animals from experimentation with a view that just as the rights of humans are respected, the animals’ rights should be respected too.

In respect to the audience, the article addresses various audiences such as animal experimenters, medical researchers and animal rights theorists. In regard to the medical researchers and animal experimenters, the author tries to communicate her argument to them by pointing out the pain and distress that is inflicted on the animals during the process of animal experimentation. Therefore, the author tries to prove to them that the practice is morally wrong. To add on, the author uses a persuasive language based on the research based language jargon to communicate to her intended audience. In addition, the author uses an argumentative tone in explaining the implications of the animal experimentation results as well as physical and psychological trauma that animals go through the practice of animal experimentation. Her argumentative tone is all over the article and one particular example is when she says, “In sum, animal rights theory shows why animal experimentation is morally wrong”. The author also uses the argumentative tone to provide various arguments that make animal experimentation morally wrong as well as trying to prove that the continued use of knowledge gained from animal experimentation only furthers the practice of animal experimentation. She gives an example of the Nazi evil results whereby human beings were mercilessly used for experimentation purposes. 

In regard to these results, they go against the respect of the victims as their use has been discouraged. Therefore, she argues that the knowledge gained from animal experimentation should not be used because it is disrespectful to animals.   Therefore, the author tries to point out to medical researchers as well as animal experimenters that there is always a lot of torture in the practice as it involves on numerous occasions the caging of these animals. Hence, the animals are not able to behave in their normal manner as they are “enslaved”. Furthermore, during animal experimentation, the animals are not induced with anesthetics therefore directly exposed to pain. The animals are also frustrated during the process of laboratory confinement for animal experimentation. Therefore, by presenting the above mentioned harms that are directed to animals during animal experimentation, the author tries to persuade the medical researchers and animal experimenters that the practice is morally wrong.  Apart from medical researchers and animal experimenters, the author also targets animal rights theorists. The author tries to point out to them that the rights of animals should be equaled to the rights of human beings. Therefore, animals should not be used in experimentation for benefits or rather animals should not be used in experimentation on the basis that they are mentally inferior to human beings.

Accordingly, there are various factors that restrict the persuasive strategies available to the author. Firstly, the author lacks the opinion of big people in regard to animal experimentation. This would have aided her in quickly persuading the readers as people tend to quickly take in opinion from influential people. Secondly, the author lacks individual experience as far as animal experimentation is concerned. Therefore, she uses the experience from other people which is not very much influential. For effective and efficient persuasion, the author ought to employ firsthand experience so as to be able effectively woe the intended audience in taking in the intended message.

The author uses various persuasive strategies. Firstly, she uses claim as a persuasive strategy. She claims that using the knowledge gained from animal experimentation encouraged the practice of animal experimentation to continue. In addition, she makes a claim that using animal experimentation is morally wrong basing on the consequential grounds as well as the deontological grounds. Secondly, she uses the logos as a persuasive strategy. In relation to this, she provides facts, numbers as well as crucial information in regard to animal experimentation with a view of driving the point home. She is able to provide the fact that animal experimentation brings both physical and psychological harm to the animals involved. She also mentions the fact that the animals are also frustrated when isolated in the laboratory. In addition the author provides crucial information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide the huge number of animals being using for animal experimentation therefore calling for the need of ending this practice. She refers to the report given by USDA, and states that, “it is estimated that 80,000,000 mice and rats are used annually in the U.S”. The author couples the logos persuasive strategy with the research persuasive strategy whereby she mentions the huge number of animals being used for animal experimentation all over the world. The author also uses pathos as a persuasive strategy. In regard to this strategy, the author uses the harmful experiences that animals go through during animal experimentation. The author also mentions kind of torture in addition to the frustration that the animals go through with a view of making the readers feel sad about the practice therefore pushing for the dire need to end it.

However, the author fails to utilize the kairos persuasive strategy. This strategy would have helped to convenience the intended audience as she could have involved her individual experience in relation to the subject matter. The author also fails to employ the big name persuasive strategy. She uses names that are not well known to many people. She could have even employed sentiments from various presidents on the subject matter in order to persuade her audience.

Basically, the main purpose of this genre is to inform why knowledge gained from animal experimentation should not be used. Therefore, the exigence, the audience as well as constraints inform the genre in various ways. Firstly, exigence introduces the author of the essay in addition to stating its main purpose. Usually, an essay has a specified subject matter with an intended audience in addition to. Hence the structure and organization of the exigence, the audience and the constraints help in informing the genre. Generally, an essay should be structured in a manner that it first introduces the subject matter, and then develops the subject matter with explanations and proofs. Thus, the exigence introduces the subject of the essay by giving claims of what the essay intends to communicate.

The audience helps in informing the essay in that it gives a development of the subject matter introduced in the exigence. The author tries to create awareness to the audience on the both the physical and psychological harm inflicted on the animals therefore persuading for the end of animal experimentation. The author also provides the point of view of human rights theorists in regard to how animals should be treated. This further helps in developing the essay. The constraints help in informing the essay because it explains the various persuasive strategies used by the author. Therefore, the author presents various strategies that she uses in sending the message home. Constraints also explain other persuasive strategies that the author should have used in her education program. This is crucial as it informs the developmental stage of the essay.  

In conclusion, the article “Against the Use of Knowledge Gained from Animal Experimentation”, by Rebecca Tuvel by is effectively written offering a clear picture of the topic under study and even the target audience. In this non-fiction analysis, it has been established that the use of knowledge gained from animal testing is morally wrong because it violets the rights of animals. The most interesting thing about the article is that the logos, ethos, and pathos have been extensively used hence leading to the clear presentation of information. The key lesson from this genre is that ethical standards must be upheld when dealing with animals especially in respect to the use of knowledge gained from experiments.