Suzuki's And King's Arguments essay example
First of all, King and Suzuki have completely different opinions when it comes to the subject of animal research. To support their arguments, they use different techniques such as trying to degrade the opposition's position. Frederick A. King uses the oppositions position to begin his argument then strengthens his own argument by making the opposition's case seems " ridiculous". Suzuki begins with the idea of how medical technology is over exaggerated in the domain of science.
In one way he tries to make the opposition (King) seems like his opinion is invalid but does not use a harsh approach like King uses. Suzuki also uses the method of belittlement to glorify his argument but he does it in a subtle way so it does not seem like he's attacking his opponent. As for King, he uses a more direct and harsh way to prove his point". Such irresponsible accusation of research (animal cruelty) have consistently characterized the publication of the MFA (opposition). However a recent study by psychologists D. Caroline Chile and Neal E. Miller of Rockefeller University contests these charges". (parag. 4, King) Another technique that is used in Suzuki's and King's arguments is the capability to persuade the reader into approving their opinion by reaching out to them on a rational or emotional level.
King is the one who reaches out for our rational side by stating facts and giving us experts' opinions to validate his argument. "There are standards and mechanisms to ensure that research animals are treated humane and scientifically sensible way. These mechanisms include the Federal Animal Welfare Act of 1966; periodic inspection of all animal-research facilities by the Department of Agriculture". (parag. 6, King) By using this form of argument, such as in the example quoted, he gives us more concrete evidence that helps us understands his position in this conflict.
One other thing we should point out is that King does use more scientific language which makes it harder for the reader to understand his point of view but we still get a sense direction because of the detailed examples he gives us. Unlike King, Suzuki uses a different approach to get the reader's attention. He uses personal anecdotes to allow us to relate to him more closely like when he was talking about the terrified squirrel to which he was sling shooting rocks at. After that horrific experience he never did any hunting and became what he is best know for now, an environmentalist.
He knows, and so does we, that if he uses personal anecdotes with cute little squirrels and furry little bunnies that it would be easier to agree with his point of view unlike the scientific ways that King chose to use to support his argument. Not all of mankind has a high level of scientific knowledge therefore making it harder to accept the rationalist's (King) point of view and since Suzuki uses a more familiar type of language, we tend to lean more towards his side. As we can see, two very different people can come up with two different point of views leading to different approaches to lure their reader into agreeing with their opinion. In this case we have David Suzuki, an environmentalist whom disagrees completely with animal research and the use of animals in laboratories, and then we have King who states that " Science must proceed" and if using animals to find cures for humans well then we should do it. We cannot argue their opinion because everyone is entitled to their own opinion but we can discuss the ways these two scientists use to approach the reader to convince them that their point of view is the right one and the only one.
Both Suzuki and King use the oppositions position to strengthen there own but still doing it in a different way. Suzuki uses a more softer approach unlike King who goes straight to the point..