It could be true if the author wrote some scientists instead of scientists. I say this because not all scientists are studying for cures for deadly illnesses. Another fallacy was; “After all, it is the violence that scares away Huntingdon's associates and brings SHAC closer to its goal of shutting down Huntingdon (Epstein and Brook)”. The author is making the assumption that it is the violence scaring away the people from Huntingdon. The third fallacy I found was “Millions of people will die unnecessarily if it is not permitted (Epstein and Brook)”. This is not a fact. It is her opinion but there is no evidence. These fallacies affect the readers response because it discredits them. Adding these fallacies made the authors argument stronger. The author could’ve grouped less to make it less of a fallacy. They could’ve provided both sides of the argument. These fallacies detract from the authors argument because it skews it one way to help them. We think the author didn’t look both sides through. Animal cruelty is wrong but so is not finding out cures for deadly diseases. As humans we should want to save others. We should be saving animals too. As stated before there should be an in between. I think it is possible to find a way to get the information needed from testing the animals but not hurting them. If some scientists
It could be true if the author wrote some scientists instead of scientists. I say this because not all scientists are studying for cures for deadly illnesses. Another fallacy was; “After all, it is the violence that scares away Huntingdon's associates and brings SHAC closer to its goal of shutting down Huntingdon (Epstein and Brook)”. The author is making the assumption that it is the violence scaring away the people from Huntingdon. The third fallacy I found was “Millions of people will die unnecessarily if it is not permitted (Epstein and Brook)”. This is not a fact. It is her opinion but there is no evidence. These fallacies affect the readers response because it discredits them. Adding these fallacies made the authors argument stronger. The author could’ve grouped less to make it less of a fallacy. They could’ve provided both sides of the argument. These fallacies detract from the authors argument because it skews it one way to help them. We think the author didn’t look both sides through. Animal cruelty is wrong but so is not finding out cures for deadly diseases. As humans we should want to save others. We should be saving animals too. As stated before there should be an in between. I think it is possible to find a way to get the information needed from testing the animals but not hurting them. If some scientists