Animals for Food, Clothing and Medicine
Essay Topic as Seen in China
April 28, 2012
海外大学教师谢振礼投稿

议论文试题简直题题都有难念的经。2012年4月28日的大作文好像埋下陷阱，一不小心就以为是与一道老题目完全相同。记得雅思出过好几次关于利用动物作科学实验的考题， 也考过如何保护面临绝迹的动物。但这次题目不一样。

通常关键字偏多则论证较难，所以跑题风险也较大，真是不知道何去何从。题目说现代人“no longer necessary” 不再需要“animals for food, clothing, medicine” 利用动物产品作为食物，衣裳，医疗。你同意还是不同意这种看法？回答这种问题往往难以摸着心肝讲道理。

当今世界真的可以不再糟蹋动物——吃其肉，穿其皮，做药品？若说同意则好像很有假装的道德良心，而却这个立场也比较方便吹牛。说不同意又好像良心不安，等于支持可以继续宰割动物，不顾动物的痛苦死活。范文作者干脆陈述两种观点，冒充讨好两方的立场，却也偏向提出不同意的立场。

每当读范文，最好把自己当做考官。检验下一篇原创范文，如果找不到主题，那肯定是跑题了。如果看到连贯不成逻辑，那也肯定结构有毛病。如果发现论证微弱，那更肯定是缺乏内容。

再进一步检验英文的用语，用句，用字。文法的缺点在哪里——修辞效率？句法变化？字汇适当？如何改进？
显然作者的母语不是英语。可是，母语外教又如何写议论文，能令读者心服口服？母语写作教练的优势是什么，是不是只有英文道地，作文不够雅思？中教的长处是不是仅仅会讲国语兼做翻译，因为英文不够道地？

明眼人知道低分写作的苦衷是六盏灯不全亮——作文的主题，结构，内容；英文的修辞，句法，字汇。英文作文高分的定义，最好去问考官，或参考官方公布的写作评分标准。

Topic>真题回忆不清

In the modern world, it is no longer necessary to use animals for food, or animal products for clothing and medicine, for example. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.


Example Writing
By Jeenn Lee Hsieh

Trying to live without exploiting animals for food, clothing or medicine can be a healthy lifestyle, except that that would probably never become a fashion. People in the modern world seem to agree that it is not 100 percent justified to eat meat, clothe in leather, or use animals as medical research subjects; nevertheless, very few people would like to choose to live the vegan way for the benefits of animals, people and the planet. The case for animal rights is likely to go nowhere simply because people can have a choice but animals cannot.

It would be out of the question to imagine that non-human animals could voice their own opinions. As it is, the question whether animals have rights as humans do has never been considered seriously. More recently, however, pro-animal and vegan groups have joined forces in supporting one basic right for animals: the right not to be property. Roughly speaking, people take it for granted that they own the world which they actually do. Of course, the animal welfare movement is being promoted to illustrate no more than moral conscience, certainly with little, if any, cognitive knowledge of, or obvious understanding from animals themselves. As a result, amid various points of view, a parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering.

On the other hand, even today common sense seems to imply that humans are licensed to kill animals for food, clothing or medicine. As if authorized by Heaven, people also make animals suffer in other things, including hard labor in farms and transportation as well as entertainment in circus shows. Discussed as a whole, this is more an issue on habitual necessity, or religious, ethnic and health backgrounds, rather than on mere survival . Although the vegan way of life is a healthy choice, most people cannot accept eating a plant-based diet, nor can they avoid using animal by-products for many purposes. Given that plants can theoretically feed, cover and cure, there is nothing like what comes from animals. In short, talking about sparing animals and leaving them alone is too cheap to carry weight since not every person is willing to be a vegan in the real sense of the word.

In all appearances, the animal debate attracts some attention but does not lead to enough action to reduce the pain of animals. Without wearing something like leather jackets and knowing to use medicines from animals, for instance, humans are in part similar to the omnivorous rats that eat anything . So, it is next to impossible for people to change the carnivorous habits and become entirely herbivorous because humans are not born vegans. (Essay created by Jeenn Lee Hsieh)