82｜动物实验：按用途限定立场
本节题目
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products.
Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
读熟范文，理解选择
01 · 引言｜交代伦理与医学效益的争议
Animal testing has long been a common practice in medical research and product safety evaluations. While some argue that it is ethically unjustifiable and should be banned due to the suffering it causes to animals, others contend that the benefits to humanity outweigh the moral concerns. In this essay, I will discuss both perspectives and provide my own opinion on the issue.
02 · 主体一｜说明反对者的伦理理由
On one hand, opponents of animal testing raise strong ethical arguments. The practice involves subjecting animals, such as laboratory mice, to painful procedures in order to test the effectiveness or safety of new drugs or products. Critics argue that animals, like humans, are sentient beings, and subjecting them to unnecessary suffering is morally wrong. They believe that humans do not have the right to inflict harm on animals for the sake of experimentation and that alternative methods of research, such as in-vitro testing or computer simulations, should be prioritized instead. In their view, the moral cost of animal testing is too high, regardless of the potential benefits to humans.
03 · 主体二｜说明支持者的医学理由
On the other hand, proponents of animal testing argue that it remains an essential tool for medical advancement. They contend that while animal experimentation is not ideal, it is necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medical treatments. Given the complexity of human biology, alternatives like computer models are not always reliable or effective. In life-or-death situations, supporters claim, the suffering of a few animals can be justified if it leads to medical breakthroughs that save countless human lives. They also argue that those who oppose animal testing might change their views if a loved one’s life were saved by a treatment developed through animal research.
04 · 个人判断｜按用途与条件区分
Personally, I believe that animal testing should be banned for non-medical products, where alternatives are available. However, when it comes to life-saving medical research, I think that animal testing may be a necessary evil, provided it is done with strict ethical guidelines to minimize animal suffering. In the future, as technology advances, I hope that more reliable alternatives will emerge, making animal testing obsolete.
05 · 结论｜重申有条件的例外
In conclusion, while I understand the moral objections to animal testing, I believe that it should be allowed under controlled circumstances for essential medical research, until more effective alternatives are developed.
选择与组织 · 为什么这样写
把题目要求拆清楚
讨论伦理反对与医疗支持；个人判断可区分用途和替代方法。
怎样组织段落
动物痛苦与替代方法→必要医疗研究→非医疗与医疗不同条件。
为什么这样选择
条件立场需要明确界线：必要性、可替代性与伦理控制，不能只写视情况而定。
语言与精度 · 本节重点
not all experiments are necessary；avoid unsupported medical claims or invented studies。
最后练一练 · 先组织，再写
读熟后，可以先遮住参考，回忆本节最有用的两三句。想动笔时再打开下方写作台，不需要首次学习就完成全文。
定点练习
把“It depends.”写成可理解的判断。
写完后看一种参考处理
I would oppose non-essential testing where reliable alternatives exist, while allowing necessary medical research under strict ethical controls.
检查它修正了什么意义或关系。可以使用不同措辞，但信息需要准确。
换题使用
本站自编迁移题
自编题：Should animals be used for entertainment and conservation programmes? 按目的区分，不复制医疗实验理由。
先试一段，再视需要写全文。将新内容写在写作台的“迁移”中；原稿留在“初稿”，修订另存到“修改”。图表题需要重新识别特征，书信与议论文需要重新回应任务。
打开写作台 · 短练、全文与复盘
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products.
Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
全文练习至少250词，约40分钟；本节短练可以先写一个主体段。
把读到的表达，写成自己的答案
Task 2 · 全文练习至少 250 词 · 建议 40 分钟
留一个复盘：我能回忆哪组表达？换了内容后，哪一句还不熟？下一次先检查这个问题。